Citation
We Do Not Eat Meat with the Christians

Material Information

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

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Anthropology
Committee Chair:
Brandt, Steven A.
Committee Co-Chair:
Schmidt, Peter R.
Committee Members:
Heckenberger, Michael J.
Wald, Kenneth D.
Graduation Date:
8/11/2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Art pottery ( jstor )
Ashes ( jstor )
Bones ( jstor )
Cattle ( jstor )
Charcoal ( jstor )
Pitting ( jstor )
Pottery ( jstor )
Slag ( jstor )
Soot ( jstor )
Surface treatment ( jstor )
Anthropology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
anthropology, archaeology, beta, caste, ethiopia, historical, israel, pottery
City of Gainesville ( local )
Genre:
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
born-digital ( sobekcm )
Anthropology thesis, Ph.D.

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. ( en )
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.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local:
Adviser: Brandt, Steven A.
Local:
Co-adviser: Schmidt, Peter R.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Rebecca A Klein.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Klein, Rebecca A. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
660256242 ( OCLC )
Classification:
LD1780 2007 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

klein_r.pdf

klein_r_Page_307.txt

klein_r_Page_418.txt

klein_r_Page_122.txt

klein_r_Page_218.txt

klein_r_Page_315.txt

klein_r_Page_059.txt

klein_r_Page_146.txt

klein_r_Page_243.txt

klein_r_Page_055.txt

klein_r_Page_437.txt

klein_r_Page_170.txt

klein_r_Page_217.txt

klein_r_Page_221.txt

klein_r_Page_241.txt

klein_r_Page_383.txt

klein_r_Page_099.txt

klein_r_Page_270.txt

klein_r_pdf.txt

klein_r_Page_394.txt

klein_r_Page_458.txt

klein_r_Page_353.txt

klein_r_Page_108.txt

klein_r_Page_085.txt

klein_r_Page_370.txt

klein_r_Page_321.txt

klein_r_Page_240.txt

klein_r_Page_411.txt

klein_r_Page_440.txt

klein_r_Page_262.txt

klein_r_Page_444.txt

klein_r_Page_397.txt

klein_r_Page_487.txt

klein_r_Page_082.txt

klein_r_Page_071.txt

klein_r_Page_160.txt

klein_r_Page_462.txt

klein_r_Page_435.txt

klein_r_Page_448.txt

klein_r_Page_156.txt

klein_r_Page_433.txt

klein_r_Page_030.txt

klein_r_Page_194.txt

klein_r_Page_129.txt

klein_r_Page_376.txt

klein_r_Page_176.txt

klein_r_Page_034.txt

klein_r_Page_125.txt

klein_r_Page_058.txt

klein_r_Page_329.txt

klein_r_Page_078.txt

klein_r_Page_388.txt

klein_r_Page_210.txt

klein_r_Page_158.txt

klein_r_Page_404.txt

klein_r_Page_076.txt

klein_r_Page_118.txt

klein_r_Page_201.txt

klein_r_Page_004.txt

klein_r_Page_415.txt

klein_r_Page_043.txt

klein_r_Page_172.txt

klein_r_Page_465.txt

klein_r_Page_337.txt

klein_r_Page_119.txt

klein_r_Page_484.txt

klein_r_Page_011.txt

klein_r_Page_021.txt

klein_r_Page_331.txt

klein_r_Page_289.txt

klein_r_Page_405.txt

klein_r_Page_101.txt

klein_r_Page_425.txt

klein_r_Page_327.txt

klein_r_Page_260.txt

klein_r_Page_252.txt

klein_r_Page_003.txt

klein_r_Page_205.txt

klein_r_Page_287.txt

klein_r_Page_335.txt

klein_r_Page_232.txt

klein_r_Page_175.txt

klein_r_Page_054.txt

klein_r_Page_268.txt

klein_r_Page_350.txt

klein_r_Page_459.txt

klein_r_Page_135.txt

klein_r_Page_097.txt

klein_r_Page_490.txt

klein_r_Page_181.txt

klein_r_Page_375.txt

klein_r_Page_410.txt

klein_r_Page_213.txt

klein_r_Page_074.txt

klein_r_Page_396.txt

klein_r_Page_325.txt

klein_r_Page_162.txt

klein_r_Page_304.txt

klein_r_Page_346.txt

klein_r_Page_317.txt

klein_r_Page_069.txt

klein_r_Page_249.txt

klein_r_Page_282.txt

klein_r_Page_356.txt

klein_r_Page_254.txt

klein_r_Page_362.txt

klein_r_Page_164.txt

klein_r_Page_002.txt

klein_r_Page_424.txt

klein_r_Page_063.txt

klein_r_Page_080.txt

klein_r_Page_393.txt

klein_r_Page_230.txt

klein_r_Page_276.txt

klein_r_Page_349.txt

klein_r_Page_103.txt

klein_r_Page_363.txt

klein_r_Page_145.txt

klein_r_Page_212.txt

klein_r_Page_302.txt

klein_r_Page_014.txt

klein_r_Page_365.txt

klein_r_Page_273.txt

klein_r_Page_112.txt

klein_r_Page_347.txt

klein_r_Page_414.txt

klein_r_Page_031.txt

klein_r_Page_219.txt

klein_r_Page_109.txt

klein_r_Page_117.txt

klein_r_Page_167.txt

klein_r_Page_028.txt

klein_r_Page_467.txt

klein_r_Page_275.txt

klein_r_Page_017.txt

klein_r_Page_045.txt

klein_r_Page_286.txt

klein_r_Page_470.txt

klein_r_Page_068.txt

klein_r_Page_038.txt

klein_r_Page_100.txt

klein_r_Page_263.txt

klein_r_Page_374.txt

klein_r_Page_427.txt

klein_r_Page_298.txt

klein_r_Page_389.txt

klein_r_Page_340.txt

klein_r_Page_016.txt

klein_r_Page_005.txt

klein_r_Page_007.txt

klein_r_Page_255.txt

klein_r_Page_173.txt

klein_r_Page_179.txt

klein_r_Page_482.txt

klein_r_Page_378.txt

klein_r_Page_084.txt

klein_r_Page_310.txt

klein_r_Page_480.txt

klein_r_Page_187.txt

klein_r_Page_098.txt

klein_r_Page_472.txt

klein_r_Page_294.txt

klein_r_Page_124.txt

klein_r_Page_046.txt

klein_r_Page_127.txt

klein_r_Page_186.txt

klein_r_Page_316.txt

klein_r_Page_041.txt

klein_r_Page_020.txt

klein_r_Page_429.txt

klein_r_Page_065.txt

klein_r_Page_441.txt

klein_r_Page_192.txt

klein_r_Page_303.txt

klein_r_Page_373.txt

klein_r_Page_438.txt

klein_r_Page_369.txt

klein_r_Page_189.txt

klein_r_Page_148.txt

klein_r_Page_110.txt

klein_r_Page_177.txt

klein_r_Page_402.txt

klein_r_Page_131.txt

klein_r_Page_195.txt

klein_r_Page_198.txt

klein_r_Page_115.txt

klein_r_Page_334.txt

klein_r_Page_259.txt

klein_r_Page_443.txt

klein_r_Page_475.txt

klein_r_Page_344.txt

klein_r_Page_010.txt

klein_r_Page_473.txt

klein_r_Page_345.txt

klein_r_Page_279.txt

klein_r_Page_431.txt

klein_r_Page_141.txt

klein_r_Page_401.txt

klein_r_Page_314.txt

klein_r_Page_039.txt

klein_r_Page_380.txt

klein_r_Page_029.txt

klein_r_Page_136.txt

klein_r_Page_087.txt

klein_r_Page_387.txt

klein_r_Page_165.txt

klein_r_Page_049.txt

klein_r_Page_229.txt

klein_r_Page_417.txt

klein_r_Page_079.txt

klein_r_Page_485.txt

klein_r_Page_283.txt

klein_r_Page_413.txt

klein_r_Page_106.txt

klein_r_Page_492.txt

klein_r_Page_407.txt

klein_r_Page_216.txt

klein_r_Page_246.txt

klein_r_Page_382.txt

klein_r_Page_406.txt

klein_r_Page_456.txt

klein_r_Page_323.txt

klein_r_Page_102.txt

klein_r_Page_242.txt

klein_r_Page_070.txt

klein_r_Page_178.txt

klein_r_Page_452.txt

klein_r_Page_060.txt

klein_r_Page_086.txt

klein_r_Page_299.txt

klein_r_Page_137.txt

klein_r_Page_269.txt

klein_r_Page_403.txt

klein_r_Page_328.txt

klein_r_Page_168.txt

klein_r_Page_371.txt

klein_r_Page_025.txt

klein_r_Page_200.txt

klein_r_Page_166.txt

klein_r_Page_277.txt

klein_r_Page_184.txt

klein_r_Page_352.txt

klein_r_Page_412.txt

klein_r_Page_432.txt

klein_r_Page_203.txt

klein_r_Page_174.txt

klein_r_Page_013.txt

klein_r_Page_193.txt

klein_r_Page_107.txt

klein_r_Page_050.txt

klein_r_Page_044.txt

klein_r_Page_312.txt

klein_r_Page_231.txt

klein_r_Page_019.txt

klein_r_Page_211.txt

klein_r_Page_420.txt

klein_r_Page_379.txt

klein_r_Page_057.txt

klein_r_Page_121.txt

klein_r_Page_191.txt

klein_r_Page_453.txt

klein_r_Page_258.txt

EMR8OHNKT_KWPEI7_xml.txt

klein_r_Page_064.txt

klein_r_Page_132.txt

klein_r_Page_400.txt

klein_r_Page_250.txt

klein_r_Page_159.txt

klein_r_Page_128.txt

klein_r_Page_223.txt

klein_r_Page_272.txt

klein_r_Page_324.txt

klein_r_Page_150.txt

klein_r_Page_359.txt

klein_r_Page_171.txt

klein_r_Page_291.txt

klein_r_Page_143.txt

klein_r_Page_093.txt

klein_r_Page_434.txt

klein_r_Page_342.txt

klein_r_Page_248.txt

klein_r_Page_047.txt

klein_r_Page_056.txt

klein_r_Page_445.txt

klein_r_Page_446.txt

klein_r_Page_075.txt

klein_r_Page_040.txt

klein_r_Page_091.txt

klein_r_Page_073.txt

klein_r_Page_266.txt

klein_r_Page_140.txt

klein_r_Page_455.txt

klein_r_Page_142.txt

klein_r_Page_366.txt

klein_r_Page_361.txt

klein_r_Page_477.txt

klein_r_Page_111.txt

klein_r_Page_390.txt

klein_r_Page_408.txt

klein_r_Page_461.txt

klein_r_Page_152.txt

klein_r_Page_089.txt

klein_r_Page_061.txt

klein_r_Page_227.txt

klein_r_Page_430.txt

klein_r_Page_355.txt

klein_r_Page_169.txt

klein_r_Page_154.txt

klein_r_Page_368.txt

klein_r_Page_222.txt

klein_r_Page_180.txt

klein_r_Page_398.txt

klein_r_Page_190.txt

klein_r_Page_239.txt

klein_r_Page_163.txt

klein_r_Page_072.txt

klein_r_Page_295.txt

klein_r_Page_036.txt

klein_r_Page_450.txt

klein_r_Page_161.txt

klein_r_Page_348.txt

klein_r_Page_377.txt

klein_r_Page_422.txt

klein_r_Page_271.txt

klein_r_Page_320.txt

klein_r_Page_384.txt

klein_r_Page_479.txt

klein_r_Page_309.txt

klein_r_Page_245.txt

klein_r_Page_037.txt

klein_r_Page_292.txt

klein_r_Page_381.txt

klein_r_Page_301.txt

klein_r_Page_196.txt

klein_r_Page_234.txt

klein_r_Page_449.txt

klein_r_Page_067.txt

klein_r_Page_409.txt

klein_r_Page_471.txt

klein_r_Page_033.txt

klein_r_Page_463.txt

klein_r_Page_012.txt

klein_r_Page_008.txt

klein_r_Page_238.txt

klein_r_Page_336.txt

klein_r_Page_244.txt

klein_r_Page_077.txt

klein_r_Page_149.txt

klein_r_Page_489.txt

klein_r_Page_052.txt

klein_r_Page_288.txt

klein_r_Page_395.txt

klein_r_Page_483.txt

klein_r_Page_247.txt

klein_r_Page_343.txt

klein_r_Page_095.txt

klein_r_Page_391.txt

klein_r_Page_306.txt

klein_r_Page_126.txt

klein_r_Page_197.txt

klein_r_Page_491.txt

klein_r_Page_351.txt

klein_r_Page_256.txt

klein_r_Page_257.txt

klein_r_Page_481.txt

klein_r_Page_024.txt

klein_r_Page_454.txt

klein_r_Page_488.txt

klein_r_Page_421.txt

klein_r_Page_209.txt

klein_r_Page_392.txt

klein_r_Page_428.txt

klein_r_Page_278.txt

klein_r_Page_367.txt

klein_r_Page_308.txt

klein_r_Page_442.txt

klein_r_Page_207.txt

klein_r_Page_466.txt

klein_r_Page_354.txt

klein_r_Page_182.txt

klein_r_Page_116.txt

klein_r_Page_042.txt

klein_r_Page_035.txt

klein_r_Page_233.txt

klein_r_Page_261.txt

klein_r_Page_372.txt

klein_r_Page_018.txt

klein_r_Page_225.txt

klein_r_Page_081.txt

klein_r_Page_027.txt

klein_r_Page_215.txt

klein_r_Page_090.txt

klein_r_Page_274.txt

klein_r_Page_208.txt

klein_r_Page_322.txt

klein_r_Page_083.txt

klein_r_Page_144.txt

klein_r_Page_138.txt

klein_r_Page_094.txt

klein_r_Page_228.txt

klein_r_Page_426.txt

klein_r_Page_265.txt

klein_r_Page_364.txt

klein_r_Page_123.txt

klein_r_Page_280.txt

klein_r_Page_134.txt

klein_r_Page_199.txt

klein_r_Page_311.txt

klein_r_Page_006.txt

klein_r_Page_284.txt

klein_r_Page_419.txt

klein_r_Page_264.txt

klein_r_Page_436.txt

klein_r_Page_183.txt

klein_r_Page_206.txt

klein_r_Page_053.txt

klein_r_Page_235.txt

klein_r_Page_096.txt

klein_r_Page_476.txt

klein_r_Page_293.txt

klein_r_Page_290.txt

klein_r_Page_155.txt

klein_r_Page_224.txt

klein_r_Page_326.txt

klein_r_Page_460.txt

klein_r_Page_153.txt

klein_r_Page_251.txt

klein_r_Page_318.txt

klein_r_Page_226.txt

klein_r_Page_300.txt

klein_r_Page_339.txt

klein_r_Page_357.txt

klein_r_Page_447.txt

klein_r_Page_022.txt

klein_r_Page_330.txt

klein_r_Page_023.txt

klein_r_Page_120.txt

klein_r_Page_468.txt

klein_r_Page_333.txt

klein_r_Page_319.txt

klein_r_Page_009.txt

klein_r_Page_464.txt

klein_r_Page_026.txt

klein_r_Page_062.txt

klein_r_Page_267.txt

klein_r_Page_338.txt

klein_r_Page_015.txt

klein_r_Page_220.txt

klein_r_Page_066.txt

klein_r_Page_188.txt

klein_r_Page_185.txt

klein_r_Page_214.txt

klein_r_Page_237.txt

klein_r_Page_281.txt

klein_r_Page_204.txt

klein_r_Page_451.txt

klein_r_Page_202.txt

klein_r_Page_147.txt

klein_r_Page_048.txt

klein_r_Page_305.txt

klein_r_Page_457.txt

klein_r_Page_151.txt

klein_r_Page_439.txt

klein_r_Page_130.txt

klein_r_Page_114.txt

klein_r_Page_469.txt

klein_r_Page_032.txt

klein_r_Page_341.txt

klein_r_Page_474.txt

klein_r_Page_088.txt

klein_r_Page_092.txt

klein_r_Page_105.txt

klein_r_Page_296.txt

klein_r_Page_386.txt

klein_r_Page_332.txt

klein_r_Page_423.txt

klein_r_Page_297.txt

klein_r_Page_313.txt

klein_r_Page_236.txt

klein_r_Page_157.txt

klein_r_Page_358.txt

klein_r_Page_133.txt

klein_r_Page_285.txt

klein_r_Page_001.txt

klein_r_Page_416.txt

klein_r_Page_385.txt

klein_r_Page_104.txt

klein_r_Page_051.txt

klein_r_Page_113.txt

klein_r_Page_139.txt

klein_r_Page_253.txt

klein_r_Page_478.txt

klein_r_Page_360.txt

klein_r_Page_486.txt

klein_r_Page_399.txt


Full Text


































_ __ __


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













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









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









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









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-









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










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









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).











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










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%




























































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 6-12 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%









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











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










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










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 6-5 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









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












































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









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.









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










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










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









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.










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%











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










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










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%









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









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.









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









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











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










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%



































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










































Figure 4-3 Location of Abwara Giorgis (AG). Photo courtesy of Google Earth 2007










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%.









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











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











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












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


























































Figure 5-3 Wark making and decorating a jebena





195









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











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
































012345


Figure 5-5 Lid for a diste


Figure 5-6 Tuhuni's roasted and ground termite clay










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.













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._._._.......









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).










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%











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










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

















































































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'~~










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










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










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%













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











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









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










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.











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%


























++++++++~



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









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%









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










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.










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.










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









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.






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





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









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.





















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










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










C"

*urr~


~plJ:
~ ~Y- -t


Figure 4-18 continued










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









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.










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%










(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














Abba Entonyos
























Abwara


Angare~b River















D afacha


Royal Compound
e


Gondaroch Maryam


Figure 4-1 1632 Map of Gonder. Source: Quirin 1992










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.









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










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.
























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











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










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%









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









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.
















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













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%










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.










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













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









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










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.









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










(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.











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









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










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




Full Text

PAGE 1

1 WE DO NOT EAT MEAT WITH THE CHRI STIANS: 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 FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Rebecca A. Klein

PAGE 3

3 To Grandma and Papa. I miss you.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Well itÂ’s not the Oscars, but there are still a number of people I w ould like to thank; I would not have reached th is point without them. First and foremost, I must express my gratitude to the Ethiopian authorities who made this research possible: Ato Jara Haile Mariam, di rector 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 ARCC H, Ato Yonas Bayene, head of archaeology at ARCCH, and at the National Museum, Mamitu Y ilma and Menkir Bitew. My field crew in Gonder, Nega, Tiru, Maway, Azano, Mulat, a nd 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 th e course of this research, both professionally and as a good friend. This proj ect would not have gotte n 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 w ould like to thank Fulbright-Hayes. I also thank the Center for Afri can 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 pursu e 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 he lp me explore new theore tical and interpretive

PAGE 5

5 paths. Dr. Luise White has been a major force in the development of my perspectives relating to history, anthropology and archaeolo gy, and how they can and should work together. Dr. Mike Heckenberger gave me a solid background in theo retical perspectives in anthropology, and has been a constant source of inspiration and ente rtainment. Dr. Kenneth Wald came through for me at the last minute and was able to provide a ne w and refreshing perspective on this work. Many other people have contributed their tim e 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 Villaln, Todd Leedy, and Corinna Greene is much appreciate d. Dan Reboussin and Peter Malanchuk in the UF library were unfailingly helpful. Zelalem Teka and Drs. H. Russe ll Bernard and Jeffrey Johnson were invaluable statisti cal resources. John Davidson was responsible for digitizing the unit profiles, and Ato Yonas KÂ’Neah of the ARCCH conservation unit provided amazing drawings of the various vessel types. Special thanks go to Dr. James Quirin, who r ead sections of this study and made sure I didnÂ’t hopelessly misrepresent Beta Israel historiographies Also thanks to va rious 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 th at fieldwork isnÂ’t ju st about conducting good research. My friends and colleagues at the University of Florida ha ve been endless sources of support, in addition to always ch allenging me to work harder and do better. These include John Arthur, Kathy Weedman, Birg itta Kimura, Matt Behrend, Ke nly Fenio, Kim Sloane, Agazi Negash, Gifford Waters, and Fl orie Bugarin. In addition I would like to thank the new

PAGE 6

6 generation of anthropology student s who frequent the Salty Dog – they know who they are – for always being ready for a study br eak 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.

PAGE 7

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ........12 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .......13 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............16 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .18 The Beta Israel................................................................................................................ ........18 The Archaeology of the Beta Israel........................................................................................20 Research Questions............................................................................................................. ....22 Research Design................................................................................................................ .....23 Contributions to the Discipline...............................................................................................2 4 Castes in Africa?.............................................................................................................. 24 Historical Archaeology in Africa....................................................................................27 The delineation between the preh istoric 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.......................................................................................................3 9 The Beta Israel in Histor ical 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 GonderÂ’s Physical and Social Structure.................................................................................49 Social Status in Gonder........................................................................................................ ..51 The Era of the Princes......................................................................................................... ....53 Social Structure during the Zamana Masafent .......................................................................56 The Beta Israel in the Ninet eenth and Twentieth Centuries...................................................58 Kifu-qen : Bad Days.................................................................................................................59 Converting the Jews............................................................................................................ ....59 Saving the Jews................................................................................................................ .......61 Conclusions: Since Faitlovitch...............................................................................................62

PAGE 8

8 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 Id entity and Culture Contact...................................................76 Culture Contact in the Archaeological Record.......................................................................79 4 METHODS: EXCAVATIONS..............................................................................................86 Selecting a Site............................................................................................................... ........86 Abwara Giorgis................................................................................................................. ......89 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 G7-North...............................................................................................................104 Discussion of Units F7G7 and G7-North......................................................................105 Unit A2........................................................................................................................ .........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 Unit 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 Unit J3........................................................................................................................ ...........117 Stratigraphy................................................................................................................... 117

PAGE 9

9 LS-L1.....................................................................................................................117 LS-L2.....................................................................................................................117 LS-L3.....................................................................................................................118 LS-L4.....................................................................................................................118 LS-L5.....................................................................................................................119 Contents of Layers.........................................................................................................119 Discussion of Unit J3.....................................................................................................120 Unit 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.................................................................................................................... .......125 5 ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH.........................................................................................160 Wezoro Shashay Adafre.......................................................................................................162 Wezoro Nigiste................................................................................................................. ....163 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...........................................................................................................1 76 Discussion..................................................................................................................... ........179 Variations in Technologies............................................................................................181 Spatial Patterns..............................................................................................................1 85 Gojam and Achefer................................................................................................186 Chilga.....................................................................................................................187 Alefata Wusa..........................................................................................................188 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... .......189 6 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS..................................................................................198 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................. ......198 Pottery Attributes............................................................................................................. .....201 Vessel Form...................................................................................................................2 01 Surface Treatments........................................................................................................203 Decoration..................................................................................................................... 204 Inclusions..................................................................................................................... ..205 Use Alteration................................................................................................................2 06 Unit A2........................................................................................................................ .........208 Vessel Types..................................................................................................................2 08 Vessel Form...................................................................................................................2 09

PAGE 10

10 Vessel wall thickness.............................................................................................209 Inclusions...............................................................................................................209 Surface treatments..................................................................................................210 Decoration..................................................................................................................... 212 Vessel Function.............................................................................................................216 Unit C4........................................................................................................................ ..........217 Vessel Types..................................................................................................................2 17 Vessel Form...................................................................................................................2 19 Vessel wall thickness.............................................................................................219 Inclusions...............................................................................................................219 Surface treatments..................................................................................................220 Decoration..................................................................................................................... 223 Vessel Function.............................................................................................................226 Unit J3........................................................................................................................ ...........228 Vessel Types..................................................................................................................2 29 Vessel Form...................................................................................................................2 30 Vessel wall thickness and rim diameter.................................................................230 Inclusions...............................................................................................................231 Surface treatments..................................................................................................232 Decoration..................................................................................................................... 234 Vessel Function.............................................................................................................236 Unit J8........................................................................................................................ ...........237 Vessel Types..................................................................................................................2 37 Vessel Form...................................................................................................................2 38 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 Vessel function.......................................................................................................253 Unit G7-West.................................................................................................................25 4 Patterns across Units.......................................................................................................... ...254 Vessel Forms.................................................................................................................25 5 Vessel wall thickness.............................................................................................256 Rim diameter..........................................................................................................257 Rim shape...............................................................................................................259 Inclusions...............................................................................................................259

PAGE 11

11 Surface treatments..................................................................................................260 Discussion..............................................................................................................261 Decoration..................................................................................................................... 262 Vessel Function.............................................................................................................264 Discussion..................................................................................................................... .266 Change Over Time............................................................................................................... .267 Vessel Types..................................................................................................................2 67 Vessel Form...................................................................................................................2 68 Wall thickness and surface treatment.....................................................................268 Inclusions...............................................................................................................269 Vessel Function.............................................................................................................270 Decoration..................................................................................................................... 270 Iron Production................................................................................................................ .....273 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... .......274 7 CONCLUSIONS AND DIRECT IONS FOR THE FUTURE..............................................393 Change over Time............................................................................................................... ..394 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 MATERIALS...............................................425 F AG 2004 POTTERY: BODY SHERD COUNTS AND WEIGHTS...................................429 G POTTERY ATTRIBUTES BY VESSEL TYPE..................................................................432 LIST OF REFERENCES............................................................................................................. 471 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................492

PAGE 12

12 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Radiocarbon da tes 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 statistics for rim diameter by vessel type...........................................................283 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 fo r rim diameters by vessel type.........................................................297 6-7 Vessel types at AG 2004.................................................................................................... ...302 6-8 Decoration elements in the AG 2004 pottery assemblage.....................................................303 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.................................................322 6-15 Use alteration frequencies in the AG 2004 pottery assemblage.........................................325 6-16 Use alteration for uni dentified vessel types........................................................................335 6-17 Rim type frequency....................................................................................................... .....339 6-18 Slag frequencies a nd weights from AG 2004.....................................................................347

PAGE 13

13 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 Giorgis (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 of F7G7 firing area................................................................................................ ....137 4-10 F7 firing pit............................................................................................................. .............138 4-11 F7 wall................................................................................................................... ..............138 4-12 Extrapolated size and shape of F7 rock wall with firing area............................................139 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 s outheast corner of unit A2..................................................................149 4-22 Unit A2: profile of residential unit in northwest corner.....................................................150

PAGE 14

14 4-23 A2 rock feature.......................................................................................................... .........151 4-24 Extrapolated size and or ientation 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 5 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 north west and pit in northeast.............................................................159 4-32 Layout of structur e elements at AG2004............................................................................159 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 TuhuniÂ’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.......................................................................................35 8 6-7 Exterior rim and handle of butter-making vessel from unit A2...........................................359 6-8 Surface treatment by vessel type.......................................................................................... 360 6-9 Unit A2: surface treatment over time...................................................................................365

PAGE 15

15 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.................................................................373 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 su rface treatment over time.................................................................379 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.................................................392

PAGE 16

16 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented 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 CHRI STIANS: 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 drama tically changed the lives of thousands of people. These events, called Operation Mose s 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. Th is marked the culmination of the growing relationship between the Beta Israel and world Jewry, and sp arked worldwide awareness and interest into the lives and history of these people. This migration to Israel has allowed the Beta Is rael to live enveloped in what they consider to be their cultural and religious heritage, a nd 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 sa me time, the country of Ethiopia is losing a group of people that have been integr al throughout history to the devel opment of Ethiopian culture. The Beta Israel (also known as the Falasha) have traditionally called themselves Jews, practice a form of Judaism, and trace their lineag e directly to one of th e Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. They have long been considered out casts by other ethnic gr oups in Ethiopia, and

PAGE 17

17 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 camp s scattered throughout northern Ethiopia. One of the most significant periods of Beta Isra el history in terms of their formation into a discrete outcast societ y is the Gonder Era (1636-1755). Th is 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 econom ic 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 ethnographi c or archaeological research documenting Beta Israel life in Ethiopia. We thus know very litt le about how the Beta Isr ael organized their daily lives, or their day-to-day relati ons with Christian neighbors. This study focuses on addressing questions of Beta Israel – non-Be ta Israel relations in the 17th and 18th centuries through a combination of ethnographic and archaeological rese arch. In particular, it looks at pottery traditions of the Gonder Beta Isr ael 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 id entity is under threat. This study examines the pottery of the Beta Israel with an eye towards identifying any ch anges 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.

PAGE 18

18 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In 1984 and 1991, two events occurred that dr amatically changed the lives of thousands of people. These events, called Operation Mose s 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. Th is marked the culmination of the growing relationship between the Beta Israel and World Jewry, and sp arked worldwide awareness and interest into the lives and history of these people. This migration to Israel has allowed the Beta Is rael to live enveloped in what they consider to be their cultural and religious heritage, a nd 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 sa me time, the country of Ethiopia is losing a group of people that have been integr al throughout history to the deve lopment of Ethiopian culture. This dissertation is intended to contribute to the recording and preservation of as much information as possible about this extraordinary ch apter 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 lineag e directly to one of th e Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. They have long been considered outcas ts by other ethnic gr oups 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 (Qui rin 1992) scattered through out northern Ethiopia.

PAGE 19

19 One of the most significant periods of Beta Isra el 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 nor thwest Ethiopia, the first perm anent capital city since the 13th century. Gonder 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 visibl e. The Beta Israel, who have historically worked as artisans, were incorpor ated into the economic sphere of this urban center. With their craft skills they were instrumental in the construction of GonderÂ’s monumental castles and churches, while maintaining their more traditional occupations as smiths, potters, and weavers, and some as soldiers in the kingsÂ’ regiments. At the same time, the Beta Israel remained socially, religiously, and physically separate fr om the other ethnic groups that made up Gonder society, particularly the domina nt group, the Amhara Christians. They lived in culturally homogenous settlements on the outskirts of the cit y, 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 societ y, and marks the beginning of what scholars (Kaplan 1992, Quirin 1992) have called their form ulation into a unified social and occupational caste. The process of developing into a discrete caste society continue d during the following period, known as the Zamana Masafent (Era of the Princes), approximately 1755-1868. During this period Gonder declined as th e capital of the empire. Histor ical records are contradictory regarding the effect this had on GonderÂ’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 landrights they might have gained as artisans during GonderÂ’s zenith, and that they largely reverted

PAGE 20

20 to their pre-Gondarine low-status occupations of pottery, smithing and weaving. However, most historians agree that dur ing this period, social and physical separation between the Beta Israel and the Amhara was maintained, with both gr oups working to remain apart (Quirin 1992). The Archaeology of the Beta Israel A great deal of research has been done on th e Beta Israel, particularly since their mass migration to Israel vaulted them into the intern ational 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 a nd 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, Lesl au 1946), and medical perspectives (BatMiriam 1962, Hirsch 1999, Nudelman 2000, 2001, Seem an 1999), to give just a sample of the spectrum of research th at has been conducted. A cursory examination of the current trends in Beta Israel studies is enough to show that the vast majority of this research focuses on post-Operations Moses and Solomon topics, and places the Beta Israel in the cont ext of new immigrants in Israe li society. While this is without question an interesting and releva nt area of study, it is interes ting to note that the body of research focusing on Beta Israel lives in Ethiopia (which of course enco mpasses the majority 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 Halvy and Jacques Faitlovitch (Trevisa n Semi 1999, 1999b). The reader will note that archaeological approaches to studies of the Beta Israel are completely absent.

PAGE 21

21 Why is that? There may be infinite reasons, but I would argue that a significant factor has to do with the traditi onal relationship between archaeology an d history. Historical archaeology has traditionally been treated by American scholar s as an auxiliary science to history (Harrington 1955), and for that reason has often been s een as redundant. In conducting historical archaeology, anthropolo gists have been criticized for a dopting expensive and destructive methods to learn things that are already known through historical documents. In this case, archaeological approaches to st udies of Beta Israel lifeway s in Ethiopia may have been considered superfluous, consider ing the available body of historic al records, and the modern historiographies that have emerged from them. This view is one-sided at best, and makes se veral 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 gr oup; this becomes clear in th e 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 doe s not mean it is exhaustive. History is characterized by “mentions and silences” (Trouillo t 1995), it is by its nature a partial record. We come, then, to the 17th, 18th, and 19th century Beta Israel in G onder, to a period in their history when a cohesive group identity was beginn ing to form, when social status as a group was in flux, and when relationships between the Be ta Israel and their Amhara neighbors were constantly being renegotiated, as both groups we re adjusting to life in a multi-ethnic, multicultural urban setting. We have historical records from that period, and we have modern

PAGE 22

22 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 Chapte r 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 hi storical approach? Archaeology, which can serve to address historyÂ’s silences (Sta hl 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 relations hips between the Beta Israel and the Amhara Christians in the new capital city of Gonder. With the establ ishment 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 so cially outcast, and a pattern of physical and social separation between themselves and the Amhara was established that became a trademark of th e 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 comp lex society? How did their interaction patterns with the Amhara change, and how did the Beta Isr ael adapt to these changes? Did they seek to become part of Gonder society, or did they pref er to remain separate? Were their daily life patterns modified as a result of their new socialeconomic-political contexts, and if so, where did change occur, and which social domains were ri gidly maintained? And ho w did all this change

PAGE 23

23 again, with the collapse of Gonder in the 18th century? Finally, how migh t 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 project is made up of three phase s, each drawing on a particular discipline and its associated methodologies. The first phase was a thorough review of the historical na rratives 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-cha nging relationships between the Beta Israel and the Amhara Christians of Gonder, and second, the contradi ctory ways these relationships are sometimes represented in the variou s histories (Schmidt 2006). With these two issues in mind, I conceived of an approach th at could contribute to our capacity to resolve these conflicting representation s, 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 Is rael and Amhara. Phase Two of this project, which comprises the bulk of my research, consisted of an archaeological approach. There exists a school of thought in anth ropology (see Dietler and Herbich 1998; Hodder 1979, 1982, 1990; Sackett 1985, 1990 to name a few), whic h 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 a ffiliation with one group, and non-affiliation with another. Since the contexts in which tec hnical behaviors are cons tructed and reproduced correspond to the same networks of social in teraction upon which identi ties themselves are constructed and reproduced (Gosselain 1998), in th is research I examine issues of identity and social interaction through the lens of Beta Israel material culture.

PAGE 24

24 The third phase of this project was an et hnographic 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: firs t, 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 project (the Gonder and post-Gonder Eras) and address continuities and disconti nuities that occurred, and conti nue to occur, in the potterymaking processes. Second, the ethnographic ap proach would allow me to do something few archaeologists have the opportuni ty 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 interpretatio ns stem from the artif acts 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 th e 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 th ey constitute a “caste” society. Also up for debate is the relevance of this issu e – is labeling the Beta Israel, or any other group, as a “caste” just a matter of semantics? A gr owing 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 anthr opologists for a term or concept that accurately describes a particular set of social-political-economic characteristics.

PAGE 25

25 The core problem in the discussion of castes is a disagreement over wh at 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 198 0:21, italics in original), or “a system of labor division [in which] economic ro les 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 struct ure that can be analyzed crossculturally (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 definiti ons 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 lis ts several characteristics of a caste: 1) a centralized political st ructure, 2) social groups ranked on a permanent basis, 3) occupational specialization of groups, 4) birt h-ascribed membership, and 5) an ideological basis for group distinction that includes the c oncept of social pollu tion (1967: 332-33). Many of these features are characteristic of a ny stratified society, however, there are three that appear to differentiate

PAGE 26

26 caste and class: occupational sp ecialization, birth-ascribed membership, and separation based on an ideology of pollution (Tuden a nd Plotnikov 1970:16). These charact eristics parallel those laid out by Maquet, and both correspond well with the tr aditional definitions of Dumont (1966) and Leach (1960). The second, and more insidious, major problem with the study of “castes” cross-culturally has been the tendency to focus on these basic cr oss-cultural similarities and to underemphasize the variation and dynamism that must exist with in any given group of people (Dirks 2001, Tuden and Plotnikov 1970, Weedman 2006). This is, of c ourse, a potential problem in any comparative cross-cultural study. If we begin with the list of criteria th at most scholars seem to agree on, we may formulate a general definition of “caste” that can be appl ied cross culturally: a closed, endogamous, birthascribed system in which separa tion between groups is rigidly ma intained. 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 syst ems, 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 speci alization is a key feat ure of their position in society), based on this general defi nition. Especially during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, the term and the criteria laid out above provide a fa irly accurate description of the social, political and economic relationships between the Beta Israel and their Amha ra neighbors. My use of the term “caste” is not meant to imply that the relati onship 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

PAGE 27

27 the development of the Beta Isr ael into a caste society as a process, and I have attempted to integrate different types of data, through a co mbination of historical, archaeological and ethnographic research, that will pl ace the Beta Israel into thei r unique historical and cultural context. A brief foray into caste studies in an thropology (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 rese arch is ethnographic. Little if any work on the materi al culture of caste societies has been undertaken. This is significant because, based on the crit eria for a caste society laid out above, such a pattern should be recognizable in the archaeological record. Settlement patterns or ar chaeological evidence of occupational specialization are just two examples of material signatures th at might indicate this type of social structure, and as I will show, ev idence for both hierarchical settlement patterns and low-status occupational speci alization are present in 17th through 19th century Beta Israel material culture. Of course material remains al one 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 attemp ts to present an holistic approach to caste studies. It is my hope that this research constitutes an example of Geertz’s context-rich “t hick description” (1973) of Beta Israel-Amhara social re lations during and after the Gonder Era, while also serving as a case study that may add a new robusticity and dimens ion to the discussion of caste societies, by whatever term they are known. Historical Archaeol ogy 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 pa rt, an American crea tion (Robertshaw 2004),

PAGE 28

28 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, Nol 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 subdi scipline of archaeology, however, they do a disservice to the concept of historical archaeo logy by first, severely limiting in scope the contexts in which such a discip line can be studied and second, placi ng 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 ea rly practitioners attempted to apply American historical archaeology in African contexts, where it did not fit. This was due to three main factors: the artificial bounda ry between prehistory and history, the emphasis on written documents, and the focus on colonial contexts These are discussed individually below. The delineation between the preh istoric and historic periods The prehistory/history distin ction 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, wh ile 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 doc uments into the culture history (Deagan 1982; however see Lightfoot 1995 for a discussion of th e underlying issues and changing paradigms in prehistory/history in American archaeology).

PAGE 29

29 The division between the prehis toric 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 writte n documents for centuries, a juxt aposition that continues today (Brandt and Weedman 1997, W eedman 2006). Where do we dr aw the line between the prehistoric and historic periods in this situation? This largely artifici al separation between time periods, when applied to an African context, of ten creates more complexity than it resolves (Schmidt 2006). One implication of this se paration is the ambiguous role played by ethnohistorical and ethnographic sources (Lightfoot 1995). By set ting up a prehistoric/hist oric paradigm that corresponded to the indigenous/European dichotom y, indigenous sources were relegated to the indigenous/prehistoric category, an d thus ignored by so-called hist orical 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 – documen ts is a fundamental problem with historical archaeol ogy as conceptualized in the United States. “Historic sources” came to refer only to texts that Western archaeo logists recognized as written language – do we consider archaeology of the Indus River Valley empi res, with their as yet indecipherable writing system, an example of historical archaeology? It was certainly a pe riod in which written documents were created, although we as archaeol ogists 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

PAGE 30

30 cultures, and denies us as scholars and anthr opologists the opp ortunity to experience those alternate histories (Schmidt and Patterson 1995, Schmidt 2006). This fundamental limitation of American histor ical archaeology aside, the focus on written texts is particularly inapplicable in many Af rican contexts, in which histories are mainly characterized by long-standing or al 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 experien ce – 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 count ries throughout the world. However, it is not always the case – Ethiopia is one example. Bu t more disturbing, this focus on colonial contexts again limited historical archaeology to the bubble of European experi ence. Thus it fit neatly into the dichotomies that have come to characteri ze historical archaeology: literate/illiterate; civilized/primitive; colonizer /subject (Andrn 1998, Deetz 1996, Lightfoot 1995, Little 1994, Schmidt 1978). This equating of colonized people with primitive and il literate has created a paradigm in which the subordinate group is withou t power – they are entire ly passive players in their own histories (Schmidt 1997). This paradigm of powerful/powerless has been pervasive in studies of the Other, and has severely limite d our abilities to rec ognize the power of the subjugated group to control and manipulate their pos itions (Miller and Tilley 1984). This is one of the major themes explor ed throughout this study. As a result of these early conceptualizations of historical archaeol ogy, the field as it has been largely practiced has focused on the in digenous/colonial dichotomy, and because the

PAGE 31

31 written records that supplement this research have existed exclusively within the colonizers’ domain, the voices of the nonliter ate people who existed in alongs ide 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 expresse d in traditional wrappings of “h istorical 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) (A ndah 1995, Giles-Vernick 2002, Hamilton 1998, Holl 1995, Schmidt and Patterson 1995, White 2000 to name only a few). A recent recognition of the inappl icability of American histor ical archaeological theories has led to a new generation of hi storical archaeologists in Africa, who are working to develop a historical archaeology that is a ppropriate 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, Schmid t and Walz 2007, Wylie 1995). In order to conduct an historical archaeology that is not limite d to European contexts, this new generation is developing an historical archaeo logy that relies on the emic perspective – that not only incorporates local histories but is gro unded in them (Andah 1995, DeCorse 2001, Holl 1995, Schmidt and Patterson 1995, Schmidt and Walz 2007). Thus an integration of history, archaeology and ethnographic expres sions is sought and a need is recognized to consider the many potential historical sources that can enha nce interpretation (Andr n 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 pa rticular (Lightfoot 1995, Schmidt and Patterson 1995, Schmidt 2006, Schmidt and Walz 2007, Stahl 2001, 2004, Reid and Lane 2004, Robertshaw

PAGE 32

32 2004, Vogel, ed. 1997). This approach proposes “an integration or synthesis of archaeological, documentary and oral sources that attempts to reconstruct the past” (c f. Robertshaw 2004; see also DeCorse 1997; Hall 1997; Horton 1997; Schm idt 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 di scipline within an African context. One of the key features of this new appro ach to African historical archaeologies is multivocality, or the acceptance of multiple histor ies. For too long history has attempted to determine What Happened in the Past, as thoug h there were some objective History that was merely waiting to be uncovered. It is necessary to embrace the paradigm of multiple alternative histories and to recogniz e the goal is not to find out What Happ ened (as that is rarely, if ever, possible) but to discover how various people expe rience their histories. A material culture approach allows for the creation of alternative hi stories, and more importa ntly, histories that are rooted in explicitly African sources (Schmidt and Patte rson 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 longstandin g difference between the disciplines in terms of their goals and epistemologies. She argues th at while the focus in archaeology has been on progress – the developments of agriculture, me tallurgy, urbanism – the focus in historical disciplines has been engaged since the 1970s in discourse on underdevelopme nt in the context of European colonialism.

PAGE 33

33 In the last decade, the goals of Af rican archaeology have shifted and expanded to include more postprocessual approaches; this corr esponds 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 re creation (Fair 2001), genealogy and kinship classification systems (Posnansky 1966, Richards 1960), and ritual (Schmidt 1997) to name a few. These studies have effec tively 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 le vel of collaboration between archaeologists, ethnographers, and historians that has traditionally been avoided. In this way scholars can work together to fill the “interdiscip linary spaces” (Stahl 2001); those sile nces left by other disciplines. This approach is not actually new – Posnans ky’s (1968, 1969) work in the Great Lakes region and Connah’s (1975) research at Be nin are two early examples of deliberate attempts to combine archaeology and ethnography. Peter Schmid t (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 S outhern African colonial and pa storal Khoikhoi society, and DeCorse’s (2001) work on the impacts of the sl ave trade at Elmina have all adopted this interdisciplinary approach that seeks to explor e African histories with in African contexts.

PAGE 34

34 However, as Reid and Lane (2004) argue, this approach to African historical archaeology is still sporadic. The work of future historical arch aeologists in Africa is clearly cut out for us. It is my hope that the research I have conduc ted 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 defi nition of “historical archaeology.” I was working in a setting in which historical documents were av ailable, but the context was not colonial. The majority 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 gene rally 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 subjects I found that all avenues of research into the lifeways of these people – archaeological, hi storical, ethnographic – were necessarily fragmentary, and to achieve the most holistic perspective possible, I chose to combine these types of data into an interdisciplinary approac h, in the vein of the ne w trend in historical archaeology as it is conceptual ized and conducted in Africa. Dissertation Organization This dissertation is organized more or less by discipline. Chapter 2 introduces the Beta Israel from an historical perspe ctive. In it I present what we know about the Beta Israel, from their earliest roots to their migration to Is rael, from historical records and modern historiographies based on these records. I di scuss 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 ot her avenues, and lay a framework for my own research as a complementary body to the hi stories that have been (re)constructed.

PAGE 35

35 In Chapter 3 I discuss the theoretical foundations of my research. This chapter summarizes various anthropological and sociol ogical theories about reacti ons to culture contact, and discusses how an archaeological approach might sh ed light on the topic. I draw upon studies of style and material culture, and th e identification of cultu ral boundaries in the material record to argue that continuities or changes in the styles of the pottery ma nufactured 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, an d describes the layout of the archaeological site. Chapter 5 focuses on the ethnographic compone nt 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 rec overed pottery and ethnogr aphic observations, and presents my findings. In Chapter 7 I integrate the archival, archaeo logical and ethnographic evidence, attempting to develop a more synthetic pict ure of Beta Israel-Amhara social relations during and after the Gonder Era. In this chapter I pr esent any patterns revealed by these complementary sources, as well as any anomalies that might lead to re vised hypotheses and further study. This chapter offers my interpretations and reviews the signific ance 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.

PAGE 36

36 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 majority 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 ge neral dissention from th e acting government of Ethiopia; at other times, the Be ta 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), a nd have been primarily defined by this “otherness” (Salamon 1999). These people have traditionally called themselv es 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. Be lieving that they are des cendants of one of the Lost Tribes, this caste is set up as an ethnically distinct, birt h-ascribed and endogamous closed system, with fixed rules of social separation and interaction, and an ideolo gical justification of this rigid separation, both by the Be ta Israel themselves and by th eir Amhara neighbors. They have long been considered outcasts by the dominan t Amhara society for their religious beliefs, and at various periods were joined by other religious and political groups who were in open rebellion against the ac ting government (Quirin, 1992; Kaplan, 1992). This suggests that their outcast status was originally defined less by religion than by politics.

PAGE 37

37 Beta Israel: The Beginnings There are various theories about the origins of the Be ta 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 subject. The international Jewish community and the Is raeli 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 al lowed the majority of th ese 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 accord ing to traditional Jewish law. Simply put, in this model, the Beta Israel are seen as the dire ct 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 ou t of Israel in the mid-eighth century BC. This origin story may date back as far as the nint h 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 Is rael are said to be the desce ndants 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

PAGE 38

38 (there is evidence supporting both a path from Egypt, or through Saudi Arabia). This is the theory supported by most modern Beta Israel scholars (Qui rin, 1992; Kaplan, 1992). The Rebel Theory differs from the previous tw o models in that it argues Christian origins of modern Beta Israel, thus attrib uting the similarities in beliefs and practices of Beta Israel and Christian Ethiopian religions to a common origin, rather than accu lturation (Quirin 1992). This perspective, introduced by anthr opologist Veronika Krempel (1972) argues that the Beta Israel were direct descendants neither of Jewish immigrants nor of Ag aw converts. Rather, she argued that the Beta Israel are 1) th e indirect descendant s of Ethiopians who had opposed the political, economic and social systems within Abyssini an feudalism, and 2) those who opposed the Christian order of Ethiopia (Qui rin 1992). This approach emphasi zes the “Ethiopianness” of the Beta Israel – ethnically and culturally they are sa id to be of the same group as the predominantly Christian population. It also sugge sts that originally, there was no cultural, linguistic or religious bond that made the Beta Israel a distinct cl ass 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 kno wn during the Gonder Era as the Falasha can be traced back to a less well-defined gro up 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 th e ancestors of the Beta Israel were Ethiopians who were in open rebellion against the Ethiopi an state and/or church. The term “Falasha” arose in the fourteen th and fifteenth centuries to refer to ayhud living in the Lake Tana area. Following Emperor Ye shaq’s victory over the Dembea and Simien

PAGE 39

39 regions in the early fifteenth cen tury, he is said to have decr eed, “He who is baptized in the Christian religion may inherit the land of his father; otherwise let him be a Falasi (outcast)” (Tamrat, 1972:201). Thus, the term “Falasha” came to be equated with landlessness. However, the use of “Falasha” to describe the Ethiopian Je ws is not found in writte n records until the early sixteenth century, when it appear s almost simultaneously in He brew, Arabic, Portuguese, and Ge’ez sources (Kapla1992, 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 te rm “Beta Israel” or “House of Israel.” Because this term is used by the Je ws 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 c ontext 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 major questions th at 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 th at the Beta Israel s poke Hebrew (Beckingham and Huntingford 1954), a claim that was corrobo rated by the Jesuit missionary Balthazar Telles in 1710 (Telles 1710); although in the fifteenth centur y, Jewish scholar Elijah of Ferrara states that the Falasha did not speak Hebr ew (Adler 1966). Quirin (1992) ar gues that the Beta Israel in the seventeenth century had maintained their indigenous Agaw language, and these Portuguese observers mistakenly called it Hebrew, by whic h they meant it was not Amharic, which they would have recognized. This is intended to corr oborate Quirin’s theory th at the origins of the Beta Israel lie in Agaw conversions rather than in the biblical di aspora. Leslau (1946) suggested

PAGE 40

40 that the Beta Israel had a part icular language of their own, not Amharic, since this would have been recognized by 17th century Jesuit missionaries, and not Hebrew, since et hnographically he concluded that there were no Hebr ew traces in 1940s Beta Israel vernacular, and it is unlikely that Hebrew would have been so completely fo rgotten. He also argued for an Agaw dialect. With the possible exception of a few scatte red words – Protestant missionary Samuel Gobat (1851) reported that in 1830, the Beta Israel were usin g 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 la nguage, 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 la nguage Leslau and Quirin argue for. With the establishment of Gonder as the capita l of the empire in the seventeenth century, the demographics of northwestern Ethiopia shif ted to become more et hnically, culturally and linguistically Amhara. This affected all the people in the greater Gonder region, including the Beta Israel, who were becoming more incorpor ated into Amhara society. Thus, by 1830, the Beta Israel were observed by Gobat speaking th eir indigenous language among themselves, but “most of them, with the exception perhaps of a fe w 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 ge neration (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 impossibl e to construct a thorough history of the Ethiopian Jews for the

PAGE 41

41 period between the sixth and thirteenth centuri es (Kaplan, 1992). There are only a few major sources that mention a group of Je ws in Ethiopia before and du ring 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 em erged 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 Et hiopians and prospering there. According to Eldad, these children of Dan mainta ined their Jewish traditions, po ssessed Jewish religious texts, and spoke Hebrew. They established a power ful 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” (A dler 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 Beckingha m 1982 for varying opinions of Eldad’s credibility). References like Eldad’s to the bravery and st rength 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, celebrati on of Beta Israel cour age 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 Isra el. Consider this example of

PAGE 42

42 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 Je ws, who are valiant, who travel and live in hair tents to shepherd their flocks. For they are pastoralis ts 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 (Ae š coly 1936; trans. Kaplan 1984) as well as this tale of Beta Israel heroism told by an anonymou s European immigrant to Rabbi Yitzhak Sholal1 in the early 14th century: Four thieves attacked a home in which a Fa lasha 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 stor y of Queen Yodit or Gudit, a possibly Jewish queen who revolted and burned many cities a nd destroyed hundreds of churches throughout Aksum in the tenth or eleventh century, openi ng 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 ve ry powerful, possessed themselves of the whole of western Abyssinia, persecuted the Christians and endeavored to ex tirpate 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 th rone of his fathers” (Flad 1869:8-9). While the concept of the Je wish 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. 1 Yitzhak Sholal (d. 1524) was a nagid (head of the Jewish community) in Egypt during Mamluk rule. He settled in Jerusalem in 1517, after the Turkish conquest of Egypt (Kaplan 1984).

PAGE 43

43 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 judaiz ed 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 unaffect ed by the changes in governance. Again, historical documents recording the li ves 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 1160 and 1173, Benjamin ben Jonah, a me rchant 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 Peni nsula. Benjamin frequently mentioned the presence of “Israelites,” sometimes from the trib e of Dan (Adler 1966:53), some of whom lived in “cities and castles on the summ its 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, Ullendor f 1968) have argued th at Lybia should be translated as Nubia (another name for Ethiopia), a nd that Benjamin is in fact referring to the Ethiopian Jews. Other historians, Steven Ka plan among them, argue that the confusion over names makes it impossible to determine exactly what region Benjamin is discussing. Around the same time, Rabbi Petachia of Ratis bon reported “more than sixty myriads of Jews” in the land of Cush and Babel (Adler 1966 ). Again, there is considerable debate over

PAGE 44

44 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 Solom onic dynasty marked a major shif t in the balance of power in Ethiopia, as the Solomonic kings sought to c onsolidate 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 Ethiopi a (Quirin 1992). A major feat ure 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 polici es, and as Christianity was incorporated into the state, this fostered aggre ssion towards non-Christians. In re sponse 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 Quee n of Sheba (the ruler of Ethiopia) met with King Solomon of Is rael 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 th e 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. Ho wever, 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 co ncept 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.

PAGE 45

45 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 incl ude the first documented example of ayhud resistance to the Ethiopian state (Hess 1969), w ith a record of a revol t 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 skir mish, 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 th e Lake Tana area appear to have been only of peripheral concern to the Solom onic kings. However, Yeshaq was much more ruthless in his treatment. He personally led an attack agai nst the Lake Tana groups, and upon victory, imposed Christianity on them. He proclaimed all non-Christians falasi – 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 nonChristian, outcast, and landless together. The ayhud /Falasha compensated for this loss of land and status by becoming skilled in masonry and metallurgy, while continui ng 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). Fo r this reason, Zar’a Ya ’eqob conceived of the ayhud as his main ideological enemy, and set out to er adicate or convert them. He was unable to do

PAGE 46

46 either, and conflicts continued throughout his rule, a nd throughout the reig ns of four more emperors: Ba’eda Maryam (1468-1477), Eskend er (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 centr al 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 histor y of the Muslim invasions). During this time, the Jewish groups first alli ed themselves with invading Muslims against Christian Ethiopia, but later joined the Portuguese force (who had come at the request of emperor Lebna Dengel) to help defeat the Muslim rule. Kaplan (1992) sugges ts that this alliance le d to the restoration of some of the Falashas’ rights. Shawa: The New Center of Power From the time the Zagwe dynasty was overthr own and the Solomonic dynasty restored (1270 AD) to the mid-1500s, the emperors of Ethiopi a did not build cities, but lived in mobile tent cities, which served as “w andering capitals.” This patter n 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) cla im 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 th e 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.

PAGE 47

47 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 ch anged the status of the Beta Is rael over the long term. They maintained a degree of political autonomy, and be gan 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 citie s 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, p illaging, enslavement, but they also began to play more important roles within the larger societ y as craftspeople. This incorporation into the political and economic spheres of society is th e main focus of my archaeological research. Susenyos In 1614, a group of Beta Israel led by the rebe l Gedewon joined a larg er revolt against the emperor Susenyos. Susenyos was able to quash th e 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 sp ared, as long as they converted to Christianity. This was the most severe acti on against the Beta Israel ever taken, as Susenyos’ aim was to “[erase] the memory of Judaism fr om 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 th e 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 thr eat to the empire. This marked the end of

PAGE 48

48 three centuries of conflic t between judaized groups and Chris tian 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 th e 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 (Kapla n 1992). In 1632, Fasilidas established the city of Gonder as the political, economic, religious an d cultural center of the Ethiopian kingdom. This founding of the first permanent capital si nce the rule of the Za gwe, and the largest permanent urban center in highland Ethi opia since ancient Aksum itself (ca.1st-9th century), secured Gonder’s place in history. Fasilidas bu ilt 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 chur ch 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-ra nking artisans and laborers also increased. The Gonder Era thus was a key period in the pr ocess 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 (Kem ant) and servants or slaves (Oromo). The Beta Israel worked as carpenters and masons, constructing the city’s monumental castles and churches, as well as main taining their more trad itional occupations as

PAGE 49

49 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 Isra el were also free to practice agriculture as independent cultivators. For the first time in their documented history, th e Beta Israel in Gonder began to be treated as a unifi ed 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 econo my, the Beta Israel maintained their religious and cultural autonomy, and kept themselves separate – socially and physical ly – from the greater society, thereby reinforcing the ongo ing processes that led to a unifi ed Beta Israel cultural and/or occupational caste (Quirin 1992: 99).3 Gonder’s Physical and Social Structure There is little information regarding the physic al 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 heteroge neous during much of that period. Gonder’s population was made up of Ort hodox Christians; and also Ro man 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 Fa silidas, 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 serv ice, neither as a slave nor servant, neither husband nor wife may live with them. The Falash a .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 th at 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.

PAGE 50

50 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 em erging caste relationship of the Beta Israel with the dominant Ethiopian society (Quirin 1992:95). These enclaves were distributed based on social class, in concentric circ les from the royal compound at the ce nter, so the social structure of Gonder can be clearly read from the physical structure. The ring nearest to the royal compound was inhabited by the noble cla ss and the upper clergy. In a secondary ring, surrounding the nobility, were the main Christia n residential areas, w hose inhabitants mostly comprised Gonder’s middle class. The lowest ranking classes, incl uding the Beta Israel, live d in outlying enclaves away from the city center, so that they we re 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 furthe r from Gonder city such as Gondaroch Maryam, Azazo, and Tadda (Figure 2-1). Each of these ou tlying villages was culturally and religiously homogenous; Beta Israel lived only with other Beta Israel, likewise with Muslim and Kemant groups.5 4 It is important to keep in mind the likelihood that al though officially decreed by the Amharan authorities, this physical separation was desired and upheld by all groups. 5 It is important to mention that of all these settlements, one community does not fall into the general pattern of physical 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 Chris tian church of Qeha Iyyasus 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 Iyyasus 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 hypothesis, if correct, raises some interesting questions in light of social status – is it realistic to acce pt that the dominant Amhara society would allow a group of people that were feared and hated to remain in their mids t 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).

PAGE 51

51 The question of land-holding pa tterns 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 sometime s 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, a nd to the north of Lake Tana. This core area “incorporated as subordinate minorities Muslims, Beta Israel an d … 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 falasi and landless by Yeshaq – that some Beta Israel have control over their own plots of land7. Social Status in Gonder As partly evidenced by the control of land, hi storians present the Gonder Era as a time of relatively high economic and social status fo r the Beta Israel (P ankhurst 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 smithin g 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 7 Historian James Quirin has argued (1977:103) that stat us 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 cent ury, 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.

PAGE 52

52 masons and carpenters of Gonder, responsible fo r the construction of the city’s monumental castles, churches and bridges. Even within th e lower-status occupations of smithing, potting and weaving, the Beta Israel were an integral pa rt of the economic sphere of Gonder society, providing essential goods and labor to the new urban center. A ll of these factors may have affected the Amhara perceptions of the Beta Isra el, and increased their chances for upward social mobility. The records of various travelers to Ethiopia al so agree on the level of excellence in Beta Israel smithing. The Portuguese Jesuits Father Manoel de Almeida and Ba lthazar Telles (writing in the early 17th and early 18th centuries, respectively), as well as the German scholar Job Ludolphus (1682) and English Protestant mission ary JM Flad (1869) all independently comment that the “Falasha are great smiths” (Beck ingham and Huntingford 1954:54, Ludolphus 1682:390, Telles 1710:38, Flad 1869:27). However, this rise in status did not en tirely overcome their outcast position within Gonder’s social hierarchy. Nor wa s 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 pa rt 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 id entity as separate from the Amhara Christians and the other ethnic groups that popu lated Gonder. It is also charac terized as a period of relative

PAGE 53

53 peace and prosperity for the Beta Israel, as evid enced by the value placed on their skills, and the rewards of land and titles. There exists only one known historical chroni cle written by a Beta Israel – during the reign of Menilek II (18891913) – 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, Iyyasu II (1730-1755). At that time a general shift began towa rds decentralization and “localization” of power and res ources throughout Ethiopia, as well as a rise in power of Gonder’s noble class. Although a succession of Solomonic em perors continued to claim the throne, this shift served to weaken imperial power substantia lly and to create politic al instability, and is responsible for this period’s moniker Zamana Masafent or “The Era of the Princes,” which lasted from 1755 to the mid-nineteenth century8. The immediate impact of this shift in Gonde r was increased warfare and insecurity, and a sharp decline in the populati on (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 st one construction that the Gonder kings had commissioned and the Beta Israel had built. This caused the Beta Israel to revert to their preGondarine low-status occupations of smithing, potting and weaving, and, as holders of lower status positions, the Beta Israel were no longer pa id with land and titles, but began to receive compensation in the form of money and slaves. However, despite Quir in’s (1977) claim that power in Ethiopia has traditionall y been associated with control over people, the ownership of slaves did not bring with it a rise in status; in stead the reverse seems to have occurred, and the 8 For detailed discussion of the collapse of the Gonder Er a, see Pankhurst 1969, Crummey 1975, 1981, Kaplan 1992, and Quirin 1992

PAGE 54

54 Beta Israel became part of the general outcast pop ulation, 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 so ciety during the Zamana Masafent varies in the perceptions of different historians. Eng lish Protestant missionary JM Flad visited Ethiopia in the second half of the nineteenth cen tury, and was one of ve ry few visitors to discuss the Beta Israel in deta il. Statements such as “there are no very rich people among the Falashas, but many of them are well off and pros perous,” and “if [the Falasha] were more economical in their habits they might be ri cher,” (1869:26) demonstr ate 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 re ported toward the end of the eighteenth century that the Gonder Beta Israel “liv ed better than the other Ethiop ians” (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 th e Falasha” during the nineteenth century, and Kaplan refers to this period as “one of the bl eakest in [Beta Israel] history” (1992:107). The Era of the Princes is often identif ied (Quirin 1992) as key in th e consolidation of the caste relationship between the Beta Isr ael and the dominant Abyssinian society; the breakdown of the central government, shifts in the economy, and in creased proselytization that began in the mid1700s resulted in increased persecution and repressi on 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 Cr ummey disputes the claim that large-scale construction ceased after the mid-eighteenth centur y, and states, “the great lords [of the 1790s to 1840s] imitated the Solomonids in directing energy and atten tion to founding and endowing

PAGE 55

55 churches .of the six [major ch urch foundations of this era] four occurred in the heartland of the Gonder kingdom” (2000:153). The continued erecti on of churches is corroborated by historian Richard Pankhurst (1969). Crummey argues that the lords who gained co ntrol after the collapse of the central government in the 1780s were not in terested in effecting a social or religious revolution, so continuity in cult ural, social and polit ical 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 so me certainty is that during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as the general population of Gonder decl ined, so did the Beta Israel population at the city’s fringes. By this time, th e 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 architect s and masons. James Bruce, visiting in the late eighteenth century, described the Beta Israel of Gonder as “m asons and thatchers of houses” (1790: III:195; IV:27), and Rppe ll wrote that along with produci ng all the pottery in Gonder, the Beta Israel “were also to the fore as hous e-builders” (1838:181; tr ans. Richard Pankhurst 1969). Likewise Protestant missionary Samuel Gobat, who was in Gonder around 1830, wrote that they “compose the architects of Gonder, and build mo st 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 la nd that was under Beta Israel control began to be encroached upon by Gonder’s noble class in the mid-nineteen th century, and Gobat reported that “the Falashas .are generally poor, because their cattle are often violen tly taken from them” (1851:279).

PAGE 56

56 Social Structure during the Zamana Masafent This shift back to artisanship as primar y occupations had some significant social implications, and was pivotal in the consolidation of a Beta Isr ael occupational cas te, 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 almo st exclusively defined by their occupations. Although, as mentioned, some linguistic accu lturation occurred dur ing the Era of the Princes, this period is characte rized more by growing social se paration 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 delinea tes 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 so cial status held by the Beta Israel during the Gonder Era declined, and 3) the rule s of intergroup interactio n 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 nece ssary 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 occupati ons to live together” (Halvy 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 pow ers. At night, the buda could turn into a hyena and would roam th e 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 an imals, and could bring sickness and death to his enemies. This cannibalistic figure is traditionall y associated with artisans, particularly smiths and potters – those craftspeople who work with fire – so it is not surprisi ng that the concept of

PAGE 57

57 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 Et hiopia, in the areas of the de nsest 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 sor cery (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 charac teristic of the Zamana Masafent was upheld by both groups, and the Beta Israel had their ow n ideologies about their Christian neighbors. Numerous historical sources refe r to the meticulous laws of cleanliness and purification of the Beta Israel (Ludolphus 1682, Bruce 1790, Goba t 1851, Stern, 1862, Flad 1869, Leslau 1951), and the Christian society was generally viewed as unclean. The Beta Israel reinforced social separation through intergroup intera ction regulations that were as rigid and more detailed than those of Christian society (Quirin 1992:145). Fo r example, “If a Falasha has defiled himself by eating bread or drinking water w ith those who are not Falashas, (meat is never eaten with Christians or Mohammedans) he must fast seve n days on raw Shimbera [dried chick peas] and water” (Flad 1869:57). The Beta Is rael considered themselves mora lly purer and superior to the Amhara Christians, and used their relig ion to justify these separation laws. Historical records and Beta Isra el oral traditions present the Zamana Masafent as a time of religious oppression and continue d internal attempts to conver t the Jews (Quirin 1992), during which, those Beta Israel who did not convert were once more relo cated to outlying areas. The 9 In northwest 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).

PAGE 58

58 reign of Tewodros II (1855-1868) also saw the firs t English Protestant mi ssionaries targeting the Beta Israel (Hess 1969). These missions were met with limited success, and instead fueled the religious revival that promoted increased social separation betw een the Beta Israel and their Orthodox neighbors (Hess 1969, Quirin 1992). The Beta Israel in the Ninet eenth 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 us hered in a period of cen tralization, enhancement in the power of the Ethiopian emperors, and the expansion of the Ethiopia n 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). Gonder 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 es tablishment of new “modern” cities, with monumental palaces and churches and thus demand for artisan la bor once again increased. The Beta Israel continued to be the primary mas ons, 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, c ontinued to exist, but it was mu ch reduced in size as masons and carpenters left or were taken away to partic ipate in construction activities in the new EntottoAddis Ababa socio-political and economic cente r (Quirin 1992). Significant population decrease and dispersal of the Beta Israel throughout the country is one of the characteri stic features of the late nineteenth century.

PAGE 59

59 Kifu-qen : Bad Days Along with geopolitical migration, the drasti c population decrease a nd dispersal of the Beta Israel can largely be attr ibuted 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 th e Ethiopian population. Ma ny 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 on e-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 restri ctions 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 Isra el converted to Christianity during this peri od (Kaplan 1992), although some of them even tually returned to the Beta Israel community. The first Mahdist forces from the Sudan i nvaded 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 Ja nuary of 1888 and again in August of that same year. They destroyed forty of the forty-seven churches and kill ed and took captive thousands of people (Quirin 1992). These invasions continued to lay northern Ethiop ia 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 Kugl er, who worked in Tigre. This influx was 10 For a detailed discussion of the Sudanese Mahdist invasions see Holt 1958, Erlikh 1982

PAGE 60

60 symptomatic of a general growing trend of increased European i nvolvement 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 th emselves 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 Am ongst the Jews, founded in 1809. Between 1855 and 1860, this agency sent missionaries Johann Ma rtin Flad and Henry St ern 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 “outward ly .Christian. Inwardly they remain Jewish” (in Norden 1935:158). However, the visitors were able to es tablish three missions and schools for the Beta Israel throughout northwestern Ethiopia, and es timated approximately fifty converts (Quirin 1992) before being imprisoned by the erratic em peror Tewodros. Follo wing their release in 1869, all the missionaries except for JM Flad left Et hiopia, 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 Ch ristians 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.

PAGE 61

61 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 popula tion, although young people, and the poor and disadvantaged seem to have found the mi ssion particularly attractive (Kaplan 1992). From 1868 to 1926, the Falasha Mission, under the patronage of the London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews, operate d in Ethiopia withou t the presence of any foreign missionaries. Various missionary groups continued to send sp iritual and financial support, but the day-to-day work was carried out entirely by the ne w converts (Quirin 1992). Saving the Jews In 1867, French scholar Joseph Halvy became concerned about the numerous attempts to convert the Beta Israel, and visi ted Ethiopia in order to determin e how to help them withstand the proselytization and maintain their religious id entity as Jews. His work was continued by his student, Jacques Faitlovitch, in th e first decade of the twentieth century. Faitlovitch aimed at establishing contact between Ethi opian and European Jewry, as well as at “modernizing” the Beta Israel religion to confor m to contemporary European Jewi sh practices (Hess 1969). Faitlovitch’s attempts with both the Beta Israel and the newe r 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 tr aditions such as the use of sacrifices. As part of a long-term plan to carry out these changes, Fait lovitch concentrated his efforts on the mobilization of international Jewish support for the Beta Israel, and an education process within Ethiopia that would be carried ou t by Western-educated Beta Israel (Quirin 1992). Thus was the international Jewish community ma de largely aware for the first time of the existence of the Ethiopian Jews.

PAGE 62

62 While FaitlovitchÂ’s work began to show so me results by the 1920s, in the form of Western-style schools for the Beta Israel in Addis Ababa and As mara, the effects did not reach the more rural areas of the country. Traditi onal building in Gonder wa s 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 presti gious as they had been in the seventeenth century. In Gonder and in other ru ral areas, the Beta Israel conti nued producing crafts in order to survive, but were not able to regain the unifi ed society they had had during the Gonder Era. Conclusions: Since Faitlovitch Jacques Faitlovitch more than any other visito r to Ethiopia is respons ible for the entrance of the Beta Israel into West ern Jewish consciousness. The process he set in motion in 1904 culminated eighty years later, w ith Operation Moses, which was th e 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 la w, and it signals the beginning of a new chapter in Beta Israel history.

PAGE 63

63 Figure 2-1 Beta Israel villages in Gonder (1636-1868). Source: Lejean 1865; Pankhurst 1969 Abba Kayla Meda Gondaroch Maryam Royal Compound

PAGE 64

64 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN In reviewing the history of the Beta Israel in northwestern Et hiopia, particularly since the beginning of the Gonder Era in the mid-17th century, two features imme diately stand out: first, the ever-changing levels of interaction between th e Beta Israel and the other culture groups of Gonder – most notably, the domin ant group, the Amhara Christia ns; and second, the conflicting ways these relationships are sometimes represente d in historical records. Considering the long history of tension between these two groups, and th at it was during this particular time that the Beta Israel, for the first time in documented hist ory, 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 de fined, isolated, renegade group to a cultural and occupational caste in a socially co mplex society? How did their behavior change? How did their interaction patterns with the Amha ra 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 fu rther, 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 hi storians. The social po sitioning of the Beta Israel during and after the Gonder Era has been discussed extensively by the major modern historians of the Beta Israel (Kapla n 1984, 1992, Leslau 1951, Quirin 1977, 1992, Pankhurst 1969). As addressed in the previous chapter, there is a fair amount of discrepancy in the interpretations drawn by these scho lars, particularly during the Er a of the Princes (c.1755 to mid1800s). At one end of the spectrum, historians such as Kaplan, Hess, and Quirin argue that

PAGE 65

65 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 occu pations 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 finds 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 co llapse 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 historio graphy always is, to numerous leve ls of interpretation. In my research I propose to address these questions from a new angle, through an archaeological approach, in the hopes that the mate rial 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 Isr ael a period of transiti on. 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 Er a, the group of people that woul d eventually become known as the Beta Israel were physically and culturally isolated – as a me ans of escaping persecution they lived in scattered groups throughout the Simien mountains. During the Gonder Era they lost this

PAGE 66

66 isolation and became integrated into larger soci ety. As members of Gonder society, they were subject to the laws and governance of the polity, thereby incorporated into the political sphere. As craftspeople they provided essential goods and services to the gr eater community, becoming active participants in the economic sphere. And as a group of people, defined for the first time as a unified cultural and occupationa l 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 capita l of the empire. Historical records are inconsistent in their interp retations of the implica tions this decline had on Gonder society in general and the Beta Israel in particular. The exte nt and nature of Beta Israel – Amhara interactions is unclear during this ti me. Thus, for each period there are distinct questions that need to be addresse d: 1) How did the daily lifeways of the Beta Israel change as a result of their incorporation into the various sphe res of Gonder society? 2) How did Beta Israel participation in Gonder’s politic al, economic and social spheres change after the fall of Gonder as the capital of the Ethiopian empire, and how did social interactions cha nge 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 th e 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, incorpor ated 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

PAGE 67

67 attempt to discern how the Beta Israel devel oped, maintained and expressed ideas of cultural identity as a discrete group w ithin 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 shif ting levels of interaction with the dominant ethnic group, the Amhara Christians. With incr eased day-to-day interaction between groups, or, metaphorically speaking, with people rubbing up against cultural boundary walls from both sides, would those walls be allo wed to wear down and develop hol es, leading to integration and assimilation? Or would people take pains to strengthen and refortify the walls, leading to separation and cultural autonomy? Thus my firs t research question is: How did the day-to-day lifeway patterns of the Beta Is rael 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 anth ropologists, particularly with reference to how culture contact operates as a mechanism for social change in human communities, as contact between cultures is i nherently disruptive (Cusick 1998). There are several theories about how a despised minority r eacts when it is incorporated into a larger society, including assimilation or a cculturation theories, transcultural or pluralistic theories, and resistance theories. The phrase culture contact refers to any case of “protracted, direct interchanges among members of so cial units who do not share th e same identity” (Schortman 1989, 1998: 102). The concept of “members of soci al units who do not share the same identity” is problematic – how is identity defined and delin eated? But the definition is still useful overall,

PAGE 68

68 and for the purposes of this study I will alter the s econd 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 in terpenetration and fusion in whic h persons and groups acquire the memories, sentiments, and attitudes of other pe rsons or groups, and, by sharing thei r 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 valu es. Proponents of this theory hold that racial and cultural contacts are a product of migra tion and conquest, and that adju stments consequent to those contacts will involve the processes of comp etition, conflict, accommodation, and eventual assimilation. This school of thought differed very little from the concept of acculturation proposed by cultural anthropologi sts (Herskovits 1958; Redfield et. al ., 1936, Spicer 1961). Both schools conceptualized the process of assimilation as lin ear 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 cultura l change, and undergoes greater cultural tr ansformation 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 th e dominant culture (Schortman and Urban 1998). Pluralism, or the practice of selective assimila tion of some cultural traits wh ile maintaining other indigenous

PAGE 69

69 traits, was given no place in early assimilation theories, nor was the possibility of bior multidirectional change. Thus, simple assimilation theories suggest two things: 1) that so cial boundaries between groups, which include what Park and Burgess cal l “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 gr oup will abandon their own cultural features and adopt those of the more powerful group. Because of the inherent problems in assimila tion/acculturation models, archaeologists have largely dismissed them as practical paradigms for culture contact. Ho wever 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 rejecting some of the problematic aspects outlined here. One of the major themes to emerge out of this reworking is that continuity and change ar e not mutually exclusive outcomes of culture contact (Wagner 1998). (These new mode ls 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 tr ade goods and indigenous material assemblages (Wagner 1998).

PAGE 70

70 However, he notes (1990:224) that these change s, namely the Arikara adoption of European trade goods represented a “venee r of material change,” bene ath which continued a basic underlying continuity. Similarly, based on the app earance and use patterns of European objects at indigenous sites, Charlton and Fournier G. (1 993) present the European contact situation in Mesoamerica during the Colonial and Republican periods as acculturative but also dynamic. This juxtaposition of continuity and change repr esents a shifting recogni tion of the complexities involved in culture contact situations. Resistance theories Assimilation theory continues to guide research on ethnic relations a nd culture contact (for example, Fair’s 2001 discussion of dress among fo rmer slaves in Zanzibar), and acculturation models have been reworked in recent archaeolo gical 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 un ified 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 practi ce 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 intens ification of symbolic meanings in spaces and objects. Scott (1990) coined the term “hidden transcripts” to re fer to subtle forms of resistance that do not directly confront authority. These “hidden transc ripts” are not designed to change or overthrow an existing structure; this form of resi stance tends to be in direct, individual and nonconfrontational. Rather the goal is to main tain a sense of identit y, autonomy, and control

PAGE 71

71 among a submerged group of people. Resistance can occur in a variety of formats including the transformation of meanings of sacred spaces and objects (Joyce et al ., 2001), the maintenance of symbols in sacred space (Schmidt 2006), th e 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 “sty le” (Alt 2001; Wells 1998a). Numerous examples of such resistance ha ve 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 N ubia 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 earl iest to look at the relationships between groups from this perspective, wa s 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 groups11 to use their material culture as a way of expressing their distinct identities – that is, their affilia tion 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 se ries of interviews with informants, who often made comments such as “We don’t use th is item because the [other group] uses it” (1982:54). Unfortunately his abilit y to develop a holistic model was hampered by his lack of historic context – a significant problem in archae ological studies of intergroup interaction. Smith (1998) shows that in response to Egyptian Middle Kingdom occupation, some Nubian groups responded by emphasizing their ow n culture, and excluding Egyptian influences 11 A clarification of the term “culture group” may be in orde r. 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.

PAGE 72

72 (also see Sve-Sderbergh 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 Nubi an groups responded in different ways, as will be discussed below. But all of the exampl es of resisting assimilation are characterized by emphasis on the part of the subjugated group on th eir own culture, and exclusion of outside influences, indicating an emphasis on cultural distinctiveness (Smith 1998). Thus, according to resistance theories, when tw o groups of people – particularly when one group is a despised underclass – become increasingl y interactive in one sphere of society, there will be a strong push to maintain, or even increas e, rigid boundaries in other spheres. This rigidity is most often found in the area we defi ne 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 sphere s 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 assi milated within or completely re sistant to the dominant society. More recent studies of culture c ontact are showing new concern fo r 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 ri gid paradigm, which can be classifi ed as bicultural or pluralistic theories. While not necessarily rejecting earlie r models of acculturati on and culture contact, these new models represent a rejection of unidir ectional change as the primary agent in contact situations (Deagan 1998). Do minguez (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

PAGE 73

73 formation and maintenance of r acial 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 maintaini ng other traditional charac teristics allows for a practical model of inter-group relations, while also enabling the minority group to actively maintain and manipulate their cu ltural 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). Th is concept, a workable synonym for pluralism, allows for the greater complexity and multidirectionality of cha nge in contact situations that are ignored in simple assimilative and resistance models. Wagner’s (1998) study of the Potawatomi respons es 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 rejecting social and religious aspects of European culture” ( 1998: 431). For example, in hi s study of Potawatomi sites at Rock Island and Windrose, he points to the repl acement 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 con tinuity 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 re jection of a European lifeway, as 19th century missionaries and government officials emphasized th e “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 a nd agricultural methods. This

PAGE 74

74 example demonstrates well the agency of th e so-called submerged group in negotiating and manipulating their environments to suit their purposes. Smith’s (1998) study of contact between vari ous 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 Kerm a and Napatan states used and manipulated Egyptian objects and symbols to legitimize their own position. They chose “specific motifs, practices and technologies fr om Egypt, sometimes modifying or blending them with native motifs and technologies to suit Nu bian culture” (1998:282). Wells’ (1998b) study of the responses of European provi nces within the Roman Empire reflect similar patterns of manipulation: “even when Roman-style goods were involved, the contexts in which they occur often reflected traditiona l local patterns” (1998b: 327). This t ook the form of regional variations in burial practices and sanctuary form. And De Corse (1998) presents ye t another example of European items being used in non-European contexts More than simple a doption or rejection of new influences, it is this level of give and take, of negotiation and manipulation, of boundary blurriness, that characterizes the transcultural m odel of society, and it is this dialectic that I suspect characterized Gonder Be ta Israel lifeways in the 17th and 18th centuries. Discussion In addressing questions of inte raction and integration of the Be ta Israel into Gonder society during the 17th century, we may find that their response to this new s ituation falls under one of these general models, or that it f its neatly into none of them. The Gonder Era and the subsequent Era of the Princes are often hailed by hist orians (Kaplan 1984, 1992; Quirin 1977, 1992) as the period in which the Beta Israel were transfor med from a loosely defined group of political and religious dissenters to a discrete outcast soci ety, defined both culturally and occupationally. In

PAGE 75

75 no documents do we see evidence of assimilation be tween 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, histor ians such as Kaplan (1992) and Quirin (1992) have em phasized the “Ethiopian-ness” of the Beta Israel – referring to the idea that although they were often isolated and subjugated, they we re still Ethiopian in heritage, language, dress, and many ot her aspects of culture – as an as pect of their identity that is often overlooked. We can thus tentatively hypothe size that total resistan ce was not in practice either. Add to that the oversimplicity of both th ese models, and we are left with the model of a pluralistic or transcu ltural society as the most probable and realistic. In addition, I have attempted to show that the recent trend in cult ure 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 am ong 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 wa s 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 peri od of integration for the Beta Israel – integration as a discrete caste into the larger political, economic and social sphere s of Gonder society. However, to assume the story ends here is to oversimplify the issue, and to confor m 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 major contri bution, as historical

PAGE 76

76 records are virtually silent on the motives, inte ntions, desires, and “h idden transcripts” of minority groups. Interactions between Culture Groups: the Post-Gonder Era During the Era of the Princes, all the questions laid out above mu st 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 dur ing the Gonder Era was maintain ed 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 a nd economic as well as social integration after the fall of Gonder as th e 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 in to Gondarine society during the Er a 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 integr ation? Numerous arch aeologists (Morantz 1992, DeCorse 1998, Wagner 1998 to name a few) have cau tioned against equating simple shifts or replacement in technology or artifact types with transformations in cu ltural identity. For example, Wagner (1998) points ou t that although material pref erence may change though time, in many cases the artifact function remains th e same: “a harpoon kills muskrat whether it is antler or iron” (1998:449). He views this as a veneer of technologica l change, underlying which is a continuity of traditio ns and behavior. In order for material culture to serve as an indicator of integration, the interpreter of said material cult ure must maintain an aw areness that changes in technology at an archaeological site may not necessarily indicate ch anges in cultural identity.

PAGE 77

77 The lesson we must take from earlier studies of cu lture contact is that changes in an artifact assemblage must be interpreted through the lens of cultural and historical context. Features relating to an artifact’s function then, may or may not be indicative of significant culture change within a group. Bu t 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 intere st 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 Di etler, 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 thei r material culture as a way of e xpressing their distinct identities and membership within their respective groups. According to Sackett (1 990), stylistic variation in material culture reflects ethnicity; the link be tween the two is in the traditions within which the artisans have been encultura ted as members of social gro ups, 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 cons equently diagnostic or idiomatic of ethnicity” (1990:33). Likewise, Wobst (1977) and Pollack (1983) have both ar gued 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 co mplicated one, as often artifact attribut es fit into both categories, or else whether an attribute is purely “functional” 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 diffe rent people, thus I use the term “culture group,” as a substitute.

PAGE 78

78 social boundaries” (Pollock 1983:354); in fact, Wobst defines style as “that part of the formal variability in material culture that can be relate d 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 prac tices” (Rice 1987, Cusick 1989). However, messages about cultural identity are not restricted to decorative variation. They can be found in object morphology, manufacturing techniques (R ice 1987, Herbich and Dietler 1989), use-wear (Arthur 2002), and technical d ecision-making (Lemonnier 1984), such as temper selection in pottery (Schiffer and Skibo, 1987). It is nece ssary 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 si gns of shared identity” (1998a:263). Given that material culture systems are the result of social and historical processes th at are “responsible for the formation of ethnic consciousness and the construction of ident ity” (Kalentzidou, 2000:80), we may expect that shifts in relations between neighbori ng groups (which may lead to redefinitions of identity) will be reflected in the material culture of those groups. Thus, given that the style of materi al culture, which can include morphology, manufacturing techniques and decorative techniques, often e xpresses ideas about cultural identity and group affiliation, researchers can turn to the material culture itself to look for such

PAGE 79

79 expressions. Hodder (1982) and Wells ( 1998a and 1998b), among many others, have both argued that material culture can be shown to be indicative of cu ltural or ethnic identity, which includes affiliation with one group, and non-affiliation with another, and that increasing tension between groups may cause peopl e 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 th e flag, a symbol of American identity, was a response by people who felt their cultural iden tities and lifeways threatened (Kurylo 2002, Marvin 2004). Is it likely that 17th century Beta Israel felt their ne w position as part of a larger society as a similar threat to their cultural identities and life ways, and responded in a similar manner? Did this new position continue afte r the collapse of Gonder as an economic and political capital in the 18th century? Or did the relative pros perity enjoyed by the Beta Israel collapse as well, leading to the reversion to pre-Gondarine stat us? And finally, what methods can be employed to address such questions? Culture Contact in the Archaeological Record This study proposes that the pottery of the Be ta 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 un iversally 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 cha nges in the lifeways of the people making and using it. Second, the Beta Israel women have been potters for cen turies, at least since th e reign of Yeshaq (14131430), when they were declared outcast and landless (Kaplan 1992, Quir in 1977). Pottery found at a Beta Israel village, or a ny other village around Gonder dating to the G onder Era, was most likely made by a Beta Israel wo man. Accordingly, the attri butes of the pottery in the archaeological record – the morphology, the ma nufacturing techniques, the use-wear, the

PAGE 80

80 decoration – offer direct insight in to 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, a nd 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 repr esentative sample size is available. There are numerous studies that have attemp ted 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 material s into the lives of th e submerged group: to what extent these “external” objects are adopted, and how they are used. For example, Rogers posits that change in the material inventor y can be viewed as measurable by the relative continuity or consistence of the occurrence of artifact ca tegories in a specific context from one time period to the next. This perspective is ba sed on the proposition that discontinuity in artifact assemblages should be expected in pe riods 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 brea ks in the continuity of repres ented artifacts are correlated with social transitions. We may surmise from this view the correlate that cont inuity in an artifact assemblage is indicative of a lack of social di sruption. This may or may not be the case, as resistance studies have shown, continuity of a wa y of life is often an ac tive response to social change – a response that expresses a commitment to resist adopting any aspe ct of that change. 14 Pottery may provide insight into Beta Israel lifeways fr om 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 st udy may provide a distinct avenue into the lifeways of Beta Israel women.

PAGE 81

81 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 c ontexts into account. In any case, by correlating specific artifact process, archaeological contexts, and historical periods, Rogers was able to both measure change and a ssess its implications for Arikara society (Deagan 1998). Cusick’s (1989, 1998) study of pottery change as a reflection of soci al change presents another comprehensive methodology for measuring leve ls of culture contact as represented in the archaeological record. He hypothesizes that differe nt 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 usewear. Changes in the amount of time spent making pottery may be reflected in the quality of the finished product – if people are spending le ss 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 reflect ed in “shifted frequenc ies or loss of design motifs that are not tied to other changes like chan ge in vessel forms, in troduction of non-local pottery or temporal drift” (1989:40). Thus he posits that decoration methods and motifs are attributes that change in c onjunction with social changes ( 1989). Although his hypotheses are fundamentally assimilative, this study is a very useful model for interpre ting changes in pottery over time, and linking them with changes in the group’s cultural, po litical, economic and ideological contexts. In archaeological studies of cultu re contact, the only area of consensus appears to be that there exists no cohesive model for the study of culture contact from an archaeological

PAGE 82

82 perspective. Scholars seem to agree on the problems that arise out of studie s 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 (usua lly trait lists of artifacts) are overly simplistic, and lead to erroneous assumptions, for exampl e the assumption that change in an artifact inventory is necessarily represen tative of culture change (DeCor se 1998); and 3) the traditional models themselves are overly simplistic, and donÂ’ 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 cu rrent 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 lit erature is a general call for more contextual research, and more acknowledgement of the inherent comple xities of contact situations. For example, Chris DeCorse (1998) points to David et al. Â’s (1988) study of the Nafa and Bulahay of Cameroon, in which individual artifact cl asses such as pottery ha ve demonstrated that decorative motifs, vessel forms and styles may provi de 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 decora tion 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 va rious traits, including po ttery styles, crosscut ethnographically perceived cultural boundaries. He pr esents three distinct culture groups, the Limba, the Yalunka and the Kuranko, and demonstrates how many pottery manufacture techniques, including inclusion types and decora tion, are common to all three groups, and thus do not make good indicators of cultural boundaries in the archaeological r ecord. The moral of

PAGE 83

83 this story is that we cannot assume from the mate rial record that artifact change is indicative of cultural shifts – here is where we must supplemen t the archaeological data with oral and written historical material. Thus, a thorough ar chaeological investigation, supplemented by ethnographic research, offers a distinct appr oach to questions of social positioning. From the above discussion on style, and on th e relationships between a group’s material culture and the broader sociocul tural context of the group, we ma y theorize that pottery styles can reflect changes in social, political and ec onomic boundaries, and may provide insights as to the integration or non-integration of the Beta Israel into the larger Gonde r society. Thus my approach looks at broad patte rns in pottery morphology, manufact uring techniques, use, and decoration over time and space, as well as the co ntexts in which these materials are found, and to the extent that it can be determined, used. I am looking at pottery attribut es 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 societ y was undergoing during and after th e 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 spen t on potting, as Cusick (1989) s uggests? Could the appearance of a new type of pot, or temp er material, or decorative motif indicate the adoption of new techniques and traditions? Conversely, what conc lusions could be drawn from the emergence of no new types of pots, temper materials or decora tive motifs? How might we interpret continuity in pottery attributes over time and space? Vari ous studies have interpreted these findings in different, and often contrasting ways (see the ab ove discussion of Rogers’ [1990, 1993] work, for example). Identifying continuities or discontinuities in pottery at tributes over space and time is the first step of this research; the second and much more essential step is to attempt to discern

PAGE 84

84 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 supplemente d the pottery attribute anal ysis with historical and ethnographic research, in an attempt to reach a holistic interpretation of what continuity or change in the pottery of the Be ta Israel might mean. This ap proach has allowed me to form several hypotheses. First, if the Beta Israel r eacted to their new position as a discrete caste group within the larger Gonder societ y by attempting to remain separa te and retaining their cultural autonomy, Beta Israel pottery during the Gonde r Era should show continuity in style and function over time. According to historical r ecords, Beta Israel women have been making pottery since at least the 15th century (Kaplan 1992). Contin uity in pottery manufacture techniques throughout the Gonder Era might thus re present 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 reco rd will show the appearance of new features at Be ta Israel sites – these may incl ude 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 usi ng archaeological and ethnographic me thods to supplement historical records. If this shift from the G onder 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 ar chaeological record – a level of continuity should be visible inst ead. If, on the other hand, the Er a of the Princes did in fact manifest itself as a period in which the Beta Isra el lost whatever status they had gained (along with land grants and their highe r status occupations) and reve rted to their pre-Gondarine

PAGE 85

85 occupations of potting, smithing and weaving, I woul d expect to see eviden ce of this upheaval in the material record. This evidence might take the forms of increasing pottery manufacture, or the disappearance of certain (most likely im ported and/or expensive) items from the archaeological record. The next chapter addr esses the various methods by which I examine patterning in pottery use and style for such indicators.

PAGE 86

86 CHAPTER 4 METHODS: EXCAVATIONS The general goals of the arch aeological component of my research were to find a Beta Israel village that was occupied during and afte r the Gonder Era, and to record as much as possible about the day-to-day living patterns of th is 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 st yle and function. Such patterns, if they can be associated with particular time periods, might offer important insights into how th e Gonder period and the subsequent Era of the Princes aff ected Beta Israel-Amhara relations. The archaeological research cons isted 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 aro und the city of Gonder that served as “Falashabet” (Falasha villages ) during the Gonder Era: Abwara, Tadda, Abba Entonyos, Gondaroch Maryam, Kayla Meda, Azazo, a nd Dafacha (Figures 4-1 and 4-2). In the summer of 2001, I conducted a four-week surface surv ey 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 ar e inaccessible by vehicle – there are no roads – so the entire survey was conducted on foot. Tadda and Azazo are both eas ily 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 info rmation about them. I did, however, record the

PAGE 87

87 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 with in modern-day Gonder, it has most likely been destroyed or built over. After visiting the other five ar eas, I settled on Abwara as th e 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 G ondaroch Maryam, which were not accessible by vehicle. The village of Abwara is also mentioned severa l 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-Fasilida s Beta Israel settlement area, possibly settled as early as the sixteenth century, when the church of Abwara Giorgis was constr ucted, most likely by the Beta Israel themselves. Oral historie s also state that during the Gonder Era, the Beta Israel were given land-use rights, or had their prev ious claims confirmed at Abwara, as well as the other major Beta Israel villages ar ound Gonder (Quirin 1992). Most mentions of Abwara come from the chronicles of travelers Eduard Rppell 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 p opulation, had declined. Rppell (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 call ed Falasha Bet” (1838:81). This description fits

PAGE 88

88 with the location of Abwara, and in fact, the Mus lim village is still present today. Rppell puts the population of the Falasha Bet at approximate ly sixty houses, and 3-400 people. He also states that at that time, “only the Falasha ar e 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-G onder Era decline in population continued. He refers to a Fala sha 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, [c onsisting] of about thirty houses and a mesquid [synagogue]” (1862:199). He also st ates that Abwara was the reside nce of the district head of the workers, indicating this vill age 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 cr aft center of Gonder, Abwara continued to exist, but its popul ation, as well as its importance as a center for craftwork, was much reduced. Known locally as Abwara Giorgis, the ar ea today is situated approximately 8 km southwest of the center of Gonder, and is home to a small population of Beta Israel15, 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.

PAGE 89

89 passage to Israel in the 1980s and 90s. As the major 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, funde d and directed by the North American Conference on Ethiopian Jewry (NACOEJ). Abwara Giorgis is no longer homogenous in it s cultural makeup – there is also a small Muslim population and a number of Christian families16. Most people practice subsistence farming and some craftwork, although professi onal 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 re lied upon; however, due to growing international awareness of the Ethiopian Jews, many work to produce potter y, metalwork, and woven materials for the increasing tourist industry. Abwara Giorgis Within the village of Abwara Giorgis, I sp ent several days in the summer of 2001, and again when I returned in Januar y, 2004, speaking with local inhab itants and asking them to point out specific areas where the Be ta 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 Isra el to return to this area and build houses or schools. Although there is no privately owned land in Ethiopia, there is a long hist ory 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.

PAGE 90

90 proprietary over it. As the vast majority of Be ta Israel have left G onder, 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 ha d located an area in Abwara Giorgis that villagers had pointed out as a “Fal asha village” during the Gonder Era17, 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 a ssistant, Biruk GebreMariam, from Addis Ababa, who was with me throughout the entire field season. Upon our ar rival in Gonder, we met with the zonal and woreda (neighborhood ) cultural authorities, At o Endale and Ato Fantahun, respectively. They offered their full support and were immensely helpful in obtaining the necessary research permits, a nd 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 di rected 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 regi on, 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.

PAGE 91

91 Ato Tigabie pointed out a specifi c place where the Beta Israel were said to have built their homes. It is located at the west ern end of the Abwara Giorgis area (Figure 4-4), at the foot of the hills that flank that side, and is approximatel y 50 meters by 30 meters. It appeared relatively undisturbed, except for recent plow activity. Fortunately, Ethiopian plowing methods are nonintensive, using cattle an d iron plowshafts, so the plow zone is rarely more than 10-15 cm below the surface. Although no features or archaeologi cal material were evident on the surface, I decided to conduct shovel tests in this spot to determine wh ere to focus a full-scale excavation. Ato Adane also took us to a small Beta Isra el cemetery a few hundred meters south of the site area. He pointed out a few small stones planted in the ground undern eath a sycamore tree, and said that these graves were from befo re Haile SelassieÂ’s ti me (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 a nd 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 ha d 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, wa s 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 mini mal: 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 archaeologi cal 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

PAGE 92

92 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 grazi ng area by Ato Tigabie (Figure 4-4). This is a much larger area – approximately 150 meters by 70 meters, and it lies ri ght on the edge of a ravine, creating a plateau with natural boundaries along the souther n, 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 su rveying 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 to ld us that this new area was definitely a Beta Israel village, occu pied 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 dismantle d after the site was abandoned in the 1980s. According to Abera, the Beta Israel always bui lt their houses out of stone to be more durable, and modeled after Fasilidas’ castl e, 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 th e site. Because this area was c onsiderably larger than AG test site #1, shovel tests were conducted every ten mete rs, for a total of 86 test holes (Figure 4-5).

PAGE 93

93 These shovel tests immediately yielded positive resu lts – 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 be low 60 cm below surface; the deepest test hole was 1.1 meter, and pottery was sti ll recovered at that depth. Th e 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 stati on 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 combina tion 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.18 Using a total station, I set up a grid in this area consisting of 104 2x2 me ter units (Figure 4-6); this area comprises the excavation site19. All artifacts from the surface of the site were collect ed, the surface of each unit was photographed, and the surface elevations recorded us ing a total station. Because the site slopes 18 Shovel tests were categorized into “high density,” in which the recovered artifacts filled over 75% of a sandwichsized bag; “medium density,” in which the recovered artif acts filled 40-50% of a sandwic h 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 accur acy. In laying nails for the grid, we sacrificed some accuracy in favor of no t disturbing subsurface rock s, but most of the units are still within 2 cm of 2 square meters.

PAGE 94

94 downward from east to west, I set up seven tem porary datums at different points around the excavation area, from which to take relative levels using a line leve l (Appendix B. All elevations in the following discussions are rela tive 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 adjacent 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. Unfortunate ly, the natural stratigra phy 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 belo w the surface in each unit, we switched to 5 cm levels, and began to level each unit. The si gnificant downward slope from east to west meant that elevations relative to the surface varied greatly, even with in 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 la beled. Charcoal samples were taken and their exact locations r ecorded. In one of the units, co lumn soil samples were taken for 20 One of the tips I received from several local informants wa s that farmers will not bother to plow areas where there are many rocks. So when we encoun tered 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.

PAGE 95

95 flotation analysis. Sediment colo rs and textures were recorded us ing 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 we re taken at the top and bottom of each level, using a line level and the nearest temporary datum. Subsequent excavation was larg ely directed on the basis of the presence of features and corresponding ethnographic information, which are di scussed 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 fi nd artifacts, including pottery, slag, bone and the occasional lithic, in every level, throughout th e entire deposit. The surrounding units, which included F5, F6, F8, G5, G6, G8, H7 and H8 were partially excavated, but due to time constraints (the advent of the ra iny 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 bagge d and labeled, and the surface of each level photographed and drawn to scale. In order to obtain a greater spatial perspectiv e, I attempted to get a sample of the larger excavation area. Thus, the rest of the field seas on was dedicated to exca vating 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 dur ing shovel testin g and surface survey. All four of these units were excavated until bedrock was uncovered, and the methods for excavating and collecting materi als identical to that carried out in the other units.

PAGE 96

96 Bedrock occurred at different le vels throughout the site: the pl ateau 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 J 8, the northwesternmost unit. At the same time, deposits were much shallower in the northwest ern units, and become deeper as one moves southeast, resulting in an overall surface slope upwa rd from northwest to southeast. Thus, in unit J8, located at the northwestern edge of the s ite, bedrock was reached at approximately 238 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. Th e permanent datum remains in the south wall of Ato AberaÂ’s house, at the north e nd 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 fo r 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 sta ndard deviations for these dates are large, and because of the relatively short occupation of the site (less than 600-700 year s), 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 certain ty, 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

PAGE 97

97 culture recovered from the site (discussed belo w) indicates the area was occupied up until very recently – thus again, almost certainly during th e Era of the Princes (1755-mid 1850s). This makes AG 2004 a good place to look at changes ove r 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 cr osscut 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 descri be this portion of the site. Stratigraphy LS-L1 The stratigraphy of unit F7G7 re vealed four major stratigraphic levels with several additional small stratigraphic lens es (Figures 4-7, 4-8, and 4-9). The delineation of these strata was based on sediment types, f eatures, and artifact distribution. These levels were not spread evenly throughout the unit. Th e top level, designated LS-L1, averaged approximately 60-100 cm in depth, was characterized by eith er brown (10YR 4/3) or dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) sand. It tended to contain the largest quantities of artifacts, partic ularly pottery, and rocks. Within this first main level was a very dark brown (10YR 2/2) ash lens (LS-L1a). 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, whic h 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

PAGE 98

98 of pottery were recovered from throughout this le ns, 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-L1a suggested that this was a firing ar ea. This horizon is characteristi c of the general firing areas of modern Beta Israel, and of Ethiopi an 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 activit ies such as cooking, pottery wa s 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 he re was not characteristic of primary smelting activities. There has been virtually no research on smelting practices in northern Ethiopia, but based on studies in s outhern Ethiopia (Haala nd 2004; Haberland 1978; Todd 1978, 1985), the Horn (Mapunda 1997) and Tan zania (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 cerami cs identifiable as tuyere fragments. It is more likely this was the site of secondary smelting or forging. Narratives gathered during casua l conversation with my field team, as well as from a key informant, Ato Abera, suggested that each Beta Israel house had an adjacent 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 out side the front of the house, as this is men’s work. This way, anyone approaching the house woul d be greeted immediatel y by the head of the household. My informants further indicated that th e front door of the houses face east – and that this applies to all Ethiopian houses, not only th ose inhabited by Beta Is rael. There are two

PAGE 99

99 reasons for this: first, the sun ri ses in the east, and second, wind usually blows from the north or south. Based on this information, I posited that ston e structures – the remains of houses – and work areas, indicated by the pres ence of large quantities of ash, soot, pottery, slag, and the large flat stones used in the clay firing process ( gulicha ) should be adjacent 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 ou tside the door. I thus hypothesi zed that we should find a house structure corresponding to the firi ng area directly to the west, a nd so several units were opened up in that area. However, no structural remains were found. Instead, lying immediately adjacent to the sout heast edge of the firing area, approximately 415 cm apd (23 cm below the surface), we uncover ed a rock wall that cu rved through several units (stratigraphic lens LS-L1b) (Figures 4-11 and 4-12). This wall extended through units F7, G7, F6, and G6. Its curvature is consistent with the round hous e shape characteristic of the Ethiopian tukul21, and suggested a structure approximately 4.5 meters in diameter (Figure 4-12). This and its location, immediately adjacent to th e work area, suggest this wall was the foundation of a house. This lens was characterized by da rk grayish brown sand (10YR 4/2) interspersed with large rocks, and was approximately 90 cm deep. The interior side of the wall wa s 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, whic h may have been part of a floor. It was not uniform in texture or depth across the corner of th e unit, and is not visible in the profile of the 21 Homes in postZamana Masafent Gonder had the same cylindrical structur e with conical thatched roofs as modern tukuls (Pankhurst 1969:206).

PAGE 100

100 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, suggesti ng that this (possibl e) 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 th is 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 circum ference, was built. The interior side of the wall did not show a corresponding ch ange. However, at approximat ely 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 design ated LS-L2. There was a notable decrease in slag, metal, and glass in this le vel, also indicative of a separate cultural horizon, but pottery and faunal remains continued in frequencies indi stinguishable 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 adjacent to this wall at 323.6 cm apd. 22 Records indicate metal scissors were included in trade goods in Ethiopia in the 1920s (Pankhurst 1968).

PAGE 101

101 This ash deposit was 3 cm deep, and contained no artifacts, although larg e quantities of pottery were scattered around it. It is possible that this wall and sma ll 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 northwest ern part of unit F7 and the eastern part of unit G7 (Figure 4-7). This is the level below the rock wall. Designate d LS-L3, the sediments were similar to those in LS-L1 and LS-L2, brown (10YR 4/3) or dark brow n (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 be fore the rise of the Gonder Era, and the decrease in artifacts suggests that this level was char acterized by limited cultural activit y in general, compared to the upper levels, and small-scale po ttery production in particular. LS-L4 Immediately below LS-L2, also in the southeas tern 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 meta l artifacts, one of which was a small pellet resembling buckshot. The majority 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 contai ned pottery – although the

PAGE 102

102 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 southeaste rn part of unit G7. It was poorly defined in unit F7, si tuated below and to the north a nd west of LS-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 stratigra phic level (LS-L6), directly above the bedrock, was a dark brown (7.5 YR 3/3) clay. It also was associated with a significant decreas e 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 th e 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 st andard deviations). Several te rmite 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 th is point did not have a similar sediment change and artif act 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 we stern 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.

PAGE 103

103 Contents of Layers In unit F7G7, pottery was by far the most abundant cultural material r ecovered; 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, a nd one small metal ball that resembled buckshot. Three lithics – a chalcedony core, a chalcedony flak e, 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 thr oughout 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 w ithin LS-L1 and LS-L2 (small amounts were also recovered from the pit feature LS-L4a), prim arily in the upper 20-25 cm and associated with the firing pit. Although the processing of iron ha s 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-L1a) di d 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 major 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 lo wer levels, the majority of glass, as well as metal artifacts, were also limited to LS-L1. The two lithic flakes were al so found in that layer, although the chalcedony core was recovered from LS-L3, below the F7 rock wall.

PAGE 104

104 All of this together suggests that this unit represents a residential area. LS-L1, especially the upper 20-30 cm, seems to represent recent occ upation of the unit, probably within the last hundred years. This household like ly contained at least one potte r 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 Operati on Solomon caused the site to be abandoned in the 1970s. Unit G7-North At approximately 345.6 cm apd (42-65 cm belo w surface), the sediments of the northwest corner of unit G7 became much darker than in th e 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 southeas t, 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 separa te activity area, desi gnated G7-North. The deposit from G7-North was approximately 30 cm in depth, and consisted of two stratigraphic levels. The upper level was approxi mately 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 asinus teeth were also recove red from this layer.

PAGE 105

105 The darker sediments that sepa rated G7-North from the rest of F7G7 suggests the higher presence of organic materials in th at area. It is possible that th is area served as a trash midden, possibly for the household represented in unit F7G 7. The similarities in the pottery from G7North and F7G7 suggest they come from one re sidential 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 a bout the relationship between G7-North and F7G7 from being drawn. Discussion of Units F7G7 and G7-North It appears that in the area re presented by units F7 and G7, at least two distinct residential units are visible – these units may be individual households. The major re sidential 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 sma ll 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 major F7G7 residen ce. As I discuss in Chapter 6, th e overall similarities in pottery attributes throughout the site pr ecludes pottery from being used to definitively distinguish separate households. Unit A2 In order to gain greater spatial perspective, and to take intrasit e 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, adjacent to the total station point (Figure 4-6). This unit was se lected for full excavation based on its location

PAGE 106

106 (far from the other excavated uni ts), and also based on the deep deposit and large quantities of pottery that were recovered from the adjacent shove l test. In fact, the nearest shovel test was immediately adjacent to the unit, and was visible in the north wall profile (Figure 4-18). This shovel test was re-cleared every da y, to ensure that any materials falling into the shovel test did not end up mixed in with the artif acts recovered from unit A2. Stratigraphy LS-L1 In terms of stratigraphy, unit A2 was the most complex. Eight major stratigraphic levels were identified (Figures 4-18, 4-19, and 4-20), and several additional small sediment lenses. LSL1 made up the upper 20 cm of the unit and wa s characterized by dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) and brown (10YR 4/3) sand. This level co ntained 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 de ep. There was no discernible change indicating the end of a plow zone, so this question remains unanswered. Some of these large rocks were found standi ng on end; others were identified by my field crew as alelu – upper grindstones. Pottery and bone we re recovered from this unit, as well as fragments of metal and bottle glas s; these latter artifact s were not found in a ny other levels of this unit. Along the eastern wall of the unit was a small le ns of very dark grayish brown (2.5Y 3/2) sand with large numbers of tree roots, designated LS-L1a (Figure 4-19). This lens ranged from approximately 5 to 40 cm in depth, and contai ned more pottery than the rest of LS-L1, particularly in the nort heast portion of the unit.

PAGE 107

107 LS-L2 LS-L2 was located directly below LS-L1, a nd 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 leve l 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 420). 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, al though 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) chur ned grit and rock. It cont ained 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 a nd 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 leve l LS-L3 was a feature that appeared to be an ash dump (Figure 4-19). It was ma de 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

PAGE 108

108 indistinguishable from that of LS-L1 and LS-L2. It is likely that LS-L 3 belongs to the same cultural horizon as the upper levels. Below this, the actual ash deposit ranged fr om 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 (10Y R 3/4), and the lowest level (LS-L3d) was brown (10YR 4/3). The only artifacts to be recovered from this ash pit were alelu – upper grindstones. An examination of the east and north walls of unit A2 (Figures 4-18 and 4-19) suggests that the ash pit wa s 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 appr oximately 434 cm and 376 cm apd (see Figure 418). 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 feat ure located north of the unit. LS-L3e is one of these lenses that appeared only in the north wall pr ofile. 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 sim ilarly shallow lens of brown (10YR 5/3) ash (LSL3f), which in turn lay above approximately 5 cm of dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) clay (LSL3g). Approximately 20 cm below this lay a sma ll patch of dark brown (10YR 3/3) soft clay (LS-L3h). There were no rock feat ures or cultural materials associ ated 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 wh ich 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

PAGE 109

109 (Figure 4-19). These rocks seemed to form a r ough 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 thr oughout the unit, so determining pa tterning in the ro cks is little more than speculation. The sediments within this rough “circle” were part of the LS-L1a horizon. It is likely that this layer of sand and large rocks do represent a feature, possibly a structure foundation. It may be a ssociated 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 wa s another area of dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) ash and charcoal (Figure 422). It contained limited numbers of artifacts; a small amount of pottery, a Bos sp. tarsal bone, some small unidentifiable bon e fragments, and some unfired clay. It may have represented another as h dump, or a small firing area, si milar to LS-L1a in unit F7G7. It was also immediately adjacent to the major 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 sout heast corner, and divi ded 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.

PAGE 110

110 The area west of this rock line was designa ted LS-L6. Approximately 40 cm in depth, it was characterized by disturbed light yellowish brow n (10YR 6/4) grit and rock fill (Figure 4-20). There was very little cultural material associat ed with this level; small amounts of pottery and some undiagnostic bone. Directly below this fill 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 re presented 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 st orage platform within the structure. It is likely that this stratigraphic level, the lens imme diately above it (LS-L2a) and the adjacent lens of ash to the north (LS-L5) we re all contemporary, possibly associated, and possibly representative of anothe r house structure and correspondi ng firing/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 belo w 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 leve l below the major 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 majo r occupation horizons of the unit, and by the drastic reduction in artifacts recovered. Small amounts of pottery and undiagnostic bone

PAGE 111

111 appeared in this level, and a single Bos sp. tooth. This level may repres ent the period before this part of the site was occupied. Within LS-L7, one small stratigraphic lens wa s identified in the southwest corner of the unit (Figure 4-20). LS-L7a was situated at a pproximately 346.1 cm apd (117 cm below surface), below the inner rock circle of LS-L6. A shallow deposit of 12-15 cm, this layer was characterized by pale brown (10Y R 6/3) churned and gritty sedi ments. 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 final 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 e xposed 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, 312 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 alelu and lower grindstone s, a single chalcedony core, and, in the upper levels, small amounts of metal, glass and slag. On e 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 thr oughout the unit, although

PAGE 112

112 several stratigraphic lenses – namely 2a-2e, 3b3d, 5, 6, 7, and 8 – are ch aracterized by little to no artifacts. In some levels, such as LS-L7, th is may indicate a drop in activity or occupation at this level. In other areas such as the ash dump (lenses 3b-d and possibly L5) 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 ge neralized trash midden, and thus we would not expect to find other materials th ere. And numerous archaeologi cal 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 artifac ts would be recovered from within that area; most trash would be discarded elsewher e. The higher frequenc y of artifacts recovered from the center of the unit, namely in LS-L2, is consistent with peopl e discarding their trash outside of their residence. Discussion of Unit A2 As mentioned, many of the lithostr atigraphic layers in this unit were only visible in profile, which suggested that these sediment matrices were primarily located in units adjacent 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 we re diverse, immediately suggested that unit A2 was actually situated between tw o or more activity areas, or at least that it lay immediately outside one activity area, and possibl y close to another. The spatial distribution of the features in the unit seemed to support this theory. The major feature in this unit is, of course, the possible structure in the southwest corner (LS-L6) (Figure 4-20) and associ ated ashy area (LS-L5). In addition we must consider the possible adjacent feature in the southeast corner of the unit (L S-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

PAGE 113

113 living patterns throughout Ethiopia suggest that people who are unr elated – either socially or genealogically – do not live this close together. It also stands to reason that the people who occupied the structure in the s outhwest corner may have discarde d trash directly outside this structure, in other words, in th e rest of the excavated unit. Th us for the purposes of this study, the spatial aspects of unit A2 – namely the feat ure(s) and the ashy area designated LS-L5 – are considered representative of a single residential unit. This ma y also include the ash dump (LSL3b-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 southeas tern portion of the site (Figur e 4-6) was the second of the four representative units excavated. It was selected based on the d eep deposit and large quantities of pottery recovered from the adjacent shovel test. The surface of this unit was also characterized by potsherds, several gulicha rocks and a lower grinds tone, which suggested the presence of firing and/or f ood preparation activities nearby. Stratigraphy LS-L1 In terms of sediments and artifact distribu tion, unit C4 was much more homogenous than units F7G7 and A2. It was divide d into five distinct stratigraphic layers, w ith 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, beginni ng 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.

PAGE 114

114 LS-L2 The second major level, LS-L2 was indistingu ishable from LS-L1 in terms of sediment characteristics; it was also dark grayish brow n (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 majority of artifacts from unit C4 were recovered from this leve l, 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 featur e, 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 capr inae 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 sedi ments, indicated by the darker color, and the nature of the artifacts in associ ation, suggests this was a refuse p it. 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 appearan ce 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

PAGE 115

115 layers were characterized by dark grayish br own (10YR 4/2) or brown (10YR 4/3) sand. However, the sand in LS-L3 was slightly grittie r than that of LS-L3a, which was fine. In addition, artifacts recovered from LS-L3 were lim ited 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 excep t for in the top 20 cm – along with the fine sediments that distinguish this lens from the rest of LS-L3, sugge st that LS-L3a may be another discard pit, and that it was used recently. Both lenses LS-L3 a nd 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 beneat h LS-L3 and LS-L3a. Characterized by brown (10YR 4/3) sand, it contained small am ounts of pottery, bon e 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 appear ed at approximately 341.2 cm apd, and was 3-4 cm deep. It contained no cultural materials.

PAGE 116

116 Contents of Layers Like the other units at this site, pottery made up the major ity 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 r ecovered 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 meta l artifacts, one unident ified 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 re latively 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 sma ll amount of slag, and its primary location in the top 20 cm of the unit. Given the amount of dis card 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 smelti ng activities in this area. On the other hand, in F7G7, where slag was found in greater quantities, it wa s 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 discarde d in an ashy pit, which was not located during the course of this excavation. Discussion of Unit C4 The lack of clear features, st ratigraphic diversity, diagnosti c 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 Gonde r Era; however, without an absolute date, the evidence is not definitive.

PAGE 117

117 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 so uthwesternmost corner of the site (Figure 4-6). It was selected based on its location (placed fa r enough away from the other excavated units to hopefully represent a separate activity area) and based on the deep deposit and large quanti ties of pottery recovered from the adjacent shovel test. The surface and top 10 cm of the unit were characterized by potsherds and gla ss, 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 318.9 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 sedi ment types and artifact density (Figure 427). Within this unit, five distinct stratigraphi c 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 rela tively 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 po ttery, 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 type s of artifacts recovered from th is layer were indistinguishable

PAGE 118

118 from the upper layer, and included large quanti ties of pottery, undiagnostic bone, glass, and a single metal nail. LS-L3 Below LS-L2 was another sandy brown (10YR 4/ 3) matrix, which appe ared 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 character istics, and contained many of the same artifacts as LS-L1: large quantities of gla ss, bone, and slag. Pottery was pr esent 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 th e major feature in this unit at 353.4 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 feat ure clearly extended into adjacent 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 majority 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. Meta l, slag and glass were presen t 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 freque ncies are slightly lowe r in this level; 134.3 potsherds per 5 cm level. This suggests two possi bilities: 1) LS-L4 represents an earlier time

PAGE 119

119 period – and earlier residential uni t – 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 ea rlier, separate, residential unit. LS-L5 The final level was the dark yellowish br own 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 de crease in archaeological material s, 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 F7G 7, A2 and C4, pottery made up the majority of archaeological material recovered from unit J3. A total of 2,760 potsherds were recovered, 501 of which were analyzed (see Chapte r 6). In addition, this unit contained Bos sp. and caprinae bones and teeth, and gla ss, metal, and slag. One glass bead was also recovered. Historic materials such as gla ss and metal nails, as well as sl ag, were limited to the upper three stratigraphic levels. Potte ry and bone were also recovere d from these levels, but no diagnostic bone fragments were found above LS-L3, only small unidentifiable fragments. This may be due to destructive plowi ng activities. Identifiable fauna l remains were recovered from LS-L3 and included three teeth, two phalanxes, one scapula, one radius a nd one metacarpal. All these materials belonged to either Bos sp. or caprinae. As mentioned, metal, slag and glass was larg ely absent beginning in LS-L4, and at the same time, the number of diagnostic faunal rema ins increased. Faunal materials from LS-L4

PAGE 120

120 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 onl y artifacts to be recove red 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 basi c household discard – pottery and bone. The particular bone fragments found in this un it suggests this is no t an area in which Bos sp. and caprinae were being kept and rais ed, but rather an area in whic h 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 p its 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 da ily 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, mo re excavation and a broade r 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 a nother, older unit repres ented 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 activ ity in this area before the establis hment of Gonder as the capital in the 17th century. The presence of a metal nail and ot her more modern artifact s in the upper levels suggests that activity here continued until very re cently, and the constant presence of pottery and

PAGE 121

121 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 addr essing the questions I presented in Chapter 3. Unit J8 The final individual unit to be excavated was J 8, located at the western edge of the site (Figure 4-6). Because of its location and the sl ope of the plateau, this was expected to be a shallow deposit, most likely less than 80 cm dee p. It was selected base d on its location (spaced far enough away from the other excavated units to hopefully represent a se parate household), and based on the large quantities of pottery rec overed from the adjacent shovel test. Stratigraphy Based on changes in sediment characteristics and artifact density, four distinct stratigraphic layers were identified in unit J8 (Figures 4-29 an d 4-30). As in units F7G7, C4 and A2, many of these layers contained sma ller 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 s outheastern. It yielded large quantities of pottery – the majority of the pottery from this unit ca me from LS-L1 – as well as bone, bo ttle 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-L1a this lens appeared in the up per 10-12 cm of the unit, and was characterized by dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) sa nd. 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.

PAGE 122

122 Several long rocks standing on end were found in the eastern part of LS-L1, appearing approximately 10 cm below surface. No discer nible pattern to these rocks was immediately obvious. They may have simply been disturbed by plow activities. On e lithic artifact was recovered from the upper 15 cm of the southeast corn er 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 su rface), a line of rocks appeared in the northwest corner, extending southeast. It wa s approximately 34 cm wide, and extended 98 cm into the unit (Figure 4-31). It appeared to exte nd 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 th e unit, primarily in the southeast corner, and appeared directly below LS-L1 at approximate ly 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 archaeologi cal material, only pottery – in substantially smaller frequencies than in LS-L1 – and bone. In the upper 5 cm of LS-L2 wa s 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 su rface) in the northwest corner of the unit was another shallow deposit (LS-L2b). This wa s located directly under neath the line of rocks that extended from the northwest corner of th e unit (see Figure 4-29). Averaging 3-5 cm in

PAGE 123

123 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 underneat h the line of rocks. It contained no artifacts. LS-L3 LS-L3 consisted of the major 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 br own (10YR 3/2) clay, and was approximately 50 cm deep (Figures 4-30 and 4-31). Recovered arti facts included pottery, bone, a plai n whiteware porcelain sherd, a metal blade, a chalcedony core, and a small me tal 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 materi al, 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 feat ure continued to yield cultural remains for approximately 21 cm after ster ile 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 a ppeared at approximately 263.4 cm apd (33-51 cm below surface), and ranged from 10 to 35 cm in dept h. It tended to be deepest in the eastern part of the unit. The upper 20 cm of this level c ontained 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.

PAGE 124

124 LS-L4 contained a small stratigraphic lens, which lay between LS-L2 and LS-L4 (Figure 4-30). LS-L4a appeared in the southeastern corn er of the site at appr oximately 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 containe d very few artifacts, only pottery. This paucity of artifacts led to its classification as pa rt 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 th e AG 2004 site, pottery made up the majority 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 ar tifacts, 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 sm all round object that resembled buckshot; several clear glass fragments; six small glass bead s; and a single lithic – a chalcedony core. Most of these materials were recovered from th e 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 onl y found in the upper 20 cm of the unit, and metal, except for the two objects (the blade and round obj ect) recovered from the northeast feature, was only found in the upper 40 cm (LS-L1). Identifiab le 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 presen ce of modern material s 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 feat ure in the northeast corner appears to have been created at approximately the same depth that modern materi als – namely the metal hair ornament – were

PAGE 125

125 recovered. This suggests this feature was crea ted 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 corn er fits the characteristics of a refuse pit, with the darker sediments suggesting the discard of organic materi als and the higher concentr ation of artifacts. The fact that there is little arch aeological material in the rest of the unit supports the likelihood of a midden. Conclusions Based on the spatial distribution and varying stra tigraphies of the different units excavated during the 2004 field season, it seems likely that the excavation provide d a sample of five distinct reside ntial units. Having said that, it is important to note that there are many similarities between the units – primarily in terms of artifact content. Except fo r a handful of outliers – a few lithics, some metal fragments, three porcelain fragment s – the types of artif acts 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 asinus 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 quanti ties as to be insignificant. What to make of this? As mentioned, the sp atial distribution and li thostratigraphy seem to support the idea that each of these units represen ts a separate residential unit. How do we explain the remarkable similarities in cultural ma terials in these separate residential units? I have used the term “residential unit” thr oughout this discussion to refer to a geographical area that is associated with people who are boun ded in some way. However, I have purposely

PAGE 126

126 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 re lated to each other. Are we looking at five separate households? And if s o, what does each household consis t of – a nuclear family, an extended family? Are these households independ ent of each other, and if not, what is the relationship between the households? Are we looki ng 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 comple te, spatially-oriented excavation of the areas between the excavated units. There are however, three possibilities that ca n 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 – proba bly through consanguinal or affinal ties. Such a pattern is common throughou t Ethiopia today. This is certainly a viable theory given the spatial aspects – only a sma ll 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 sq uare kilometers in size. Placed within this larger context, all five of these “residential units ” were placed very clos e together (Figure 4-32) it is very possible they were pa rts of a single larger compound. The idea of a single compound would also explai n the similarities in cultural materials recovered from the units. Members of a large ex tended family all living within a certain space would be expected to exploit sim ilar 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

PAGE 127

127 theory; again, a landscape-level analysis through further excavation of the areas between these units is necessary before any strong conclusi ons can be drawn about spatial relationships. The third possibility is that these five units ar e neither all related nor all unrelated – it is possible that the excavation unc overed two adjacent compounds, or part of one compound and one or more individual households, or some ot her combination of these. This seems unlikely, given again the high level of homog eneity 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 th e proposition of five sm aller residential units within a larger compound of struct ures, 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 Gonder. 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

PAGE 128

128 patterns in pottery manufacture a nd use are juxtaposed with a brie f discussion of artifacts relating to other occupations, primarily slag, the byproduct of iron processing. Together, they paint a picture of how the changing so cio-political situation in 17th through 19th century Gonder affected the Gonder Beta Israel in terms of their social and economic spheres. Th e artifact analysis and results are presented in Chapter 6, and the conclu sions drawn from the excav ation and analysis in Chapter 7. Table 4-1 Radiocarbon dates fr om AG 2004. Obtained from Geoc hron Laboratories and Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS). Ca librations obtained from CalPal ( www.calpal.de ) Laboratory Sample Number Material Dated/ method recovered Unit Level Measured 14C age (yr BP) 13C/12C ratio (o/oo) CalPal cal BP Geochron GX-31196 Charcoal/ A2 L7 240 60 -23.9 275126 (1 ) spot 275252 (2 ) ISGS 6025 Charcoal/ F7 L3 430 70 -25.1 43981 (1 ) spot 439162 (2 ) Geochron GX-31197Charcoal/ F7 L6 300 40 -23.7 37857 (1 ) AMS spot 378114 (2 ) ISGS 6027 Charcoal/ J3 L5 740 140 -24.0 716126 (1 ) screen 716252 (2 )

PAGE 129

129 Figure 4-1 1632 Map of Gonder. Source: Quirin 1992

PAGE 130

130 Figure 4-2 Aerial photograph of Gonder region. Photo cour tesy of Google Earth 2007

PAGE 131

131 Figure 4-3 Location of Abwa ra Giorgis (AG). Photo c ourtesy of Google Earth 2007

PAGE 132

132 Figure 4-4 AG Test Site location

PAGE 133

133 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 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 7 4 75 76 7 7 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 -40m-20m0m20m -20m 0m 20m 40m 60m 80m 100m 120m : total station point : excavation area N high artifact density moderate artifact density Figure 4-5 AG 2004 shovel test map

PAGE 134

134 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 J I H G F E D C B A 02468 Bottom elevations (cm above permanent datum) Unit A2: 331.6 Unit G6: 344.6 Unit C4: 306.2 Unit G7: 245.1 Unit F5: 349.6 Unit G8: 321.9 Unit F6: 368.1 Unit H7: 344.4 Unit F7: 263.1 Unit H8: 343.9 Unit F8: 347.6 Unit J3: 273.4 Unit G5: 374.1 Unit J8: 237.9 Figure 4-6 AG 2004 site grid fully excavated unit wall profile drawn partially excavated unit scaleinmeters N

PAGE 135

135 Figure 4-7 Unit F7 east wall profile

PAGE 136

136 Figure 4-8 G7 south wa ll profile and photograph

PAGE 137

137 Figure 4-9 Profile of F7G7 firing area

PAGE 138

138 Figure 4-10 F7 firing pit Figure 4-11 F7 wall

PAGE 139

139 Figure 4-12 Extrapolated size and shap e of F7 rock wall with firing area firing area

PAGE 140

140 Figure 4-13 Unit F7: old wall and new wall, facing south Figure 4-14 Possible fe ature in western G7 older wall

PAGE 141

141 Figure 4-15 Southeast corner of unit F7 Figure 4-16 Porcelain sherd from F7G7 LS-L4

PAGE 142

142 Figure 4-17 G7-North level 7 darker soil lighter soil line of rocks

PAGE 143

143 A Figure 4-18 Unit A2 north wall. A) A2 north wall profile, B) A2 north wall photograph

PAGE 144

144 B Figure 4-18 continued

PAGE 145

145 A Figure 4-19 Unit A2 east wall. A) A2 east wall profile, B) A2 east wall photograph

PAGE 146

146 B Figure 4-19 continued

PAGE 147

147 A Figure 4-20 Unit A2 west wall. A) A2 west wall profile B) A2 west wall photograph

PAGE 148

148 Figure 4-20 continued

PAGE 149

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

PAGE 150

150 Figure 4-22 Unit A2: profile of resi dential unit in northwest corner

PAGE 151

151 A B Figure 4-23 A2 rock feature: A) possibl e structure wall, B) inner rock feature

PAGE 152

152 Figure 4-24 Extrapolated size a nd orientation of A2 feature

PAGE 153

153 A Figure 4-25 Unit C4 west wall. A) C4 west wall profile B) C4 west wall photograph

PAGE 154

154 B Figure 4-25 continued Figure 4-26 C4 level 9 feature

PAGE 155

155 Figure 4-27 J3 east wa ll profile and photograph

PAGE 156

156 A B Figure 4-28 J3 wall feature. A) facing north, B) facing west

PAGE 157

157 A B Figure 4-29 Unit J8 north wall. A) J8 north wall profile, B) J8 north wall photograph

PAGE 158

158 A B Figure 4-30 Unit J8 east wall. A) J8 east wa ll profile, B) J8 nor theast corner photograph

PAGE 159

159 Figure 4-31 Unit J8: rock line in northwest and pit in northeast Figure 4-32 Layout of stru cture elements at AG2004

PAGE 160

160 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 Ab wara 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 subjects 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 clai med they were not Beta Israel, although some of their neighbors said otherwise. I was told that th eir 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 Gior gis, most came from Gojam and one was from Chilga. They all claimed to be Be ta Israel, and in fact two of th em were relatives of one of my field assistants. Of the two women I interviewe d in Addis Ababa, one was from Chilga, and one was from near Gorgora (Figure 5-1). Interviews were structured. Besides myself a nd the potter, my research assistant Biruk was present, serving as my interpreter, as well as a ny members of her family who were interested. In

PAGE 161

161 every interview the same standard set of ques tions 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 as k 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 gr eat-grandparents – to establish the ways in which occupations and their particular techni ques are passed on through generations. In discussing her status as a Be ta Israel I asked if both her pa rents were Beta Israel, and if she could remember, the religions of her more di stant relatives. I asked about her relationships with non-Beta Israel – if she or other members of her family ha d 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 traditi ons, I asked who taught her to make pottery, and whom she taught. I asked why she had or had not taught he r daughters or other female relatives to make pottery. I asked if she made he r pottery any differently than th e person who taught her, and if her daughters made it differently from her. I as ked what types of pots she made, and what she did with them. If she sells them, I asked who sh e 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 proc ess while she explained what she was doing and why. In one case I was ab le to interview a mother and daughter at the same time, and see how similar their techniques we re. In most cases I was able to purchase the

PAGE 162

162 finished vessel in order to compare it to th e pottery recovered thr ough 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 Gonder, and is named by historians (Pankhurst 1969, Quirin 1992 to name a couple) as one of the Beta Israel villages establishe d during the Gonder Era. It was s till a major Beta Israel center in 1975 (Quirin 1992), and today most of the Beta Is rael still in the Gond er 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 po ssible 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 an cestors 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 Isr ael-held occupation. If this is the case, it lends credence to the theory that the group known as th e “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 occupa tions 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.

PAGE 163

163 Shashay learned to make pottery from her Am hara (i.e. non Beta Israel) neighbors. She has children but was reluctant to tell us how many or their name s. She did say that she would not teach her children to make pottery. Th e reason is unknown, as she was not comfortable speaking about her children. She only makes one type of vessel, an injera plate: a large flat dish used for cooking and serving injera, and she mixes the clay and shapes the plate on th e floor inside her house. She fires the plates on the hearth that is located ou tside her house. She uses two types of locally found clay for this plate: called walka (translated simply as “clay”) and cai afer (“red soil”). She roasts the walka first, to make it stronger, then gr inds it up. She then mixes the ground walka and the raw cai afer together in almost e qual portions, slightly less walka than cai afer She does not add any temper, but mixes in water. When the clay has reached the proper consis tency, 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 consistenc y 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 unburnished side facing the flames. Then sh e burnishes the burnished side a second time, this time using shells. The burnished side is th en placed on the fire for 30 minutes to an hour. She does not decorate her injera 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 th at her husband was, and that she learned to make pottery from his relatives. She told us that she was a neighbor of

PAGE 164

164 Shashay, and that she also only makes injera plates She said she uses the exact same methods as Shashay. Cursory examinations of the injera plates Nigiste was selling showed they do appear similar in composition and techniqu e 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 Gojam, but came to Abwara Giorgis six years ago with her husband, Getahun Tiruneh, who is a weaver. Derecha’s moth er 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 intervie w them both together, and watch them both make a vessel. Derecha learned to make pottery from her mo ther and her grandmother. Her mother only made injera plates, the other types of pottery she learned from her grandmother or developed on her own. She taught her daughter how to make potte ry, and says her pottery is exactly the same as her mother’s and grandmother’s, and that he r daughter’s pottery is also the same. Wark agreed that her pottery is the same as her mo ther’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 injera 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, walka and what she called “termite clay.” This clay come s from the soil found near termite nests. Walka is easy

PAGE 165

165 to find, near any body of water, and the women colle ct it themselves. The termite clay is not found locally, it is only availabl e in Gojam. When someone sh e 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 walka ; instead, she mixes it with wate r 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 throu gh a sieve until it becomes a very fine powder. The walka and the powder are mixed together. She did not know the propor tions she uses in the mixture but says she uses more of the termite cl ay/grog powder. She knows the mixture is right when it becomes sticky and she recognizes the sm ell. 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 Der echa and Wark made vessels while we were speaking. Both women work the clay on a round w oven 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 form ed by creating an indenta tion 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 us ed 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 adde d. Derecha and Wark have three decorative techniques or methods – punctates, made with a pointed stick; fingernail impressions; and appliqu. They both said there is no particular decoration associated with a particular type of

PAGE 166

166 pot; that any decoration can go on any vessel type. While we spoke, Derecha made a diste, and decorated it with an appliqu hor izontal line that ran around the wide st point of the diste. This ridge was decorated with fingernail impressions a nd small handle-like protrusions (Figure 5-2). Wark made a jebena, decorated w ith a horizontal appliqu ridge at the base of the neck, and small appliqu protrusions around th e vessel shoulder (Figure 5-3). After the pot is shaped and decorated, it dr ies for one week, until it has become leatherhard. Then, using a metal knife, the outside of th e 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, be cause 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 us ing a cloth, and then it is fired over an open kiln, heated with wood and dung. Several pots are piled over the kiln, covered w ith dried grass, and cooked overnight for eight to twelve hours. Both Derecha and Wark make pottery for person al 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 injera plates (for 12 birr/USD 1.50), medi um-sized distes (for 3 birr/ USD 0.40), mediumsized water jugs (for 13 birr/USD 1.60), small wate r jugs (for 7 birr/ US D 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 Gojam and came to Gonder about six years ago. Amenu doe s not know how long her family has been in

PAGE 167

167 Gojam, but they have been there at least since he r grandfatherÂ’s motherÂ’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 teachi ng 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, in cluding injera plates, jebenas, medium and large distes, medium and large wa ter jugs, braziers, incense holder s, jebenas holders (clay rings on which the round-bottomed jebena sits), and ki tfo 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 walka from the local river, and tries to get the termite clay from Gojam. But because this is di fficult and expensive, she more frequently uses grog as the second clay, usually from her own broken pots. Like Derecha and Wark, she mixes the walka with water, and lets it sit for four days. The term ite clay/grog is ground up and put through a sieve; this grinding and sieving may o ccur several times in order to produce a very fine powder. Then, on the floor of her house, she mixes the two so ils so that there is approximately a 2:1 walka to clay powder ratio, and she recognizes the proporti ons are correct when th e 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 afte r 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

PAGE 168

168 sometimes a piece of wood may be used to smoot h and shape the vessel (Figure 5-4a). The body of a vessel is made by pinching a hollow in the ce nter of a lump of clay with her thumbs, and then forming the shape of the vessel with her fi ngers and thumbs. However, when a vessel has a neck (such as a water jug or a jebe na), this part is made with a se ries of clay coils, placed one on top of another, and then smoothed with her finge rs 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 co llapsing under excessive weight. For small spouts (on a jebena, for exampl e), 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 s pout through with liquid can flow ea sily. 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 pref erence. She does not always use the same decoration on the same types of pots. The jebe na she made during the interview was decorated with a horizontal appliqu ridge that ran around the throat of the pot. Below this were a series of alternating round pointed protrusi ons (lugs) and half-moon shaped protrusions; the latter were notched with a stick (Figure 5-4b). However, sh e 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 drie d to a leather-hard state, the bottom of the pot is scraped with a metal knife, a nd the top of the pot is burnished with a stone. When she makes injera plates, the top is burni shed 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.

PAGE 169

169 When she makes an injera 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 injera plates, only the top of the plate is fired; the bottom is covered with ash to keep it from burning, but never gets fired dir ectly. This, according to Amenu, is because when it gets used, the bott om will sit directly on the fire, so it is not necessary for her to fire it. In Gojam she used to make pottery for sa le, but in Gonder she makes it primarily for personal use, as the demand for pottery in G onder is limited. She will occasionally sell her pottery in the Abwara Giorgis market. The in jera plate she sells fo r 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). La rge 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 Gojam. 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 Gojam. She has two sons, and all three are waiting to go to Israel. Alemit’s parents are both from Gojam – her mo ther did not have an occupation, and her father was a weaver. Her grandparents were also from Gojam. 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 fa ther’s mother). Alemit has no daughters to teach

PAGE 170

170 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 si ster’s pottery is th e same as hers. Alemit can make every type of pot, but because of the lack of demand for clay pots in Gonder, she now mainly only makes injera plates and distes. These ar e only for her personal use. She, like the potters we interviewed in Tadda, uses walka 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 walka For most pots, she roasts the cai afer until it is red, then she will gri nd it and sieve it until it is very fine powder. Se said the roasting makes the cai afer stronger. Then she mixes it with walka During the dry season she will also add water to th e 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 walka 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 draw n from the base up. Sometimes she will use a piece of wood to draw the clay upwards to bu ild 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. Injera plates ar e not generally decorated; they sometimes have a rim with a ridge so that a lid can be placed on to p (Figure 5-5). A diste may be impressed with a stick, or may have four small appliqu protru sions from the body, which serve as handles (see Figure 5-2). Alemit also used to make lids for dist es – for this she prefers the termite clay used

PAGE 171

171 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 lin es 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 injera plates to the interiors of dist es, 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 injera plates are fired, the bottoms are covered with ash to prevent burning. Wezoro Tuhuni Mazenga Tuhuni came to Abwara Giorgis approximately fi ve 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. TuhuniÂ’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 fatherÂ’s sister), also a potter, and her uncle, who was a farmer. She learned to make pottery from another of her fatherÂ’s sisters, after her guardi an aunt died. Both of these sisters had learned from their mother (T uhuniÂ’s paternal grandm other). Tuhuni, however, does not plan to teach her daughters to make pot tery, 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.

PAGE 172

172 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 lid s, injera plates, and incense burners. For these vessels, she prefer s to use a combination of locally available walka 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 gr inds and sieves it until it is a very fine powder (Figure 5-6). The roasting is sa id to make the clay stronger. When mixing the two clay types, the proportions are 2:1 termite clay to walka which she measures in handfuls, and a little water. She re cognizes 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 thumbdepression 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 he r pots. She says thes e are the only designs she knows. Injera plates and incense holders are not decorated. Distes are adorned with a single horizontal appliqu ridge around th e body exterior, and four small pr otrusions that serve jointly 25 Tuhuni’s statement that term ite 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.

PAGE 173

173 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 st one 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 (unfired) termite clay and water is applied with a cloth after the pots are fired. Slip is ap plied to the tops of injera plates onl y, 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. Injera 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 Addi s Ababa, at the Beta Israel feeding center.27 Born and raised in Chilga, she came to Addis Ab aba five years ago with her husband as the first step to making the journey to Israel. Her hus band, 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, a nd her father’s father was also from Chilga. Her mother’s mother was from Alefata Wusa, n ear Gorgora, and she does not know about where her other grandparents were from. Her mother a nd 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 di ste may be a comparable exam ple, without the impressions on the appliqu. 27 This center was established and funded by NACOEJ

PAGE 174

174 to make pottery; she said her daughter was not in terested in learning. He r daughter finished the second grade in school, and doe s 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 ma terials. She said the one time she tried to make pottery in the city, neighbors were upset becau se of the smoke from the kiln. So we were unable to watch her go thr ough the pottery-making proce ss 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 – walka and red clay soil from termite holes. The walka is found locally, the termite clay is only found in places of high altitude, far from where she lived. She would soak the walka 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 injera plates, she would use three handfuls of walka and four of the term ite clay; for all other pots she would use one handful of walka 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, wh ich she would first sprinkle with ash. The ash prevented dirt from the ground from getting stuc k in the clay. Pots themselves were formed using her hands, beginning with a thumb indenta tion 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 28 “Ferment” was Biruk’s translation.

PAGE 175

175 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 wa s 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 appliqu. However, th e decorative motifs would vary. She said she could make lots of different decorations, using techniqu es other than appliqu and stick impressions, and that it depended on her personal prefer ence. The more elaborate the decoration, the higher price she would receive for it. After decoration, the pot would be dried outsi de for between one and three days, depending on the season. Then she would bur nish it with stones from the rive r. Injera plates would only be burnished on the top sides; di stes would be burnished on the in terior 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 w ould use a red clay, a di fferent 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, onl y the top side of the injera plat e 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 ex terior 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.

PAGE 176

176 Tinash fired her pots after they were slippe d. 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 injera 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 woul d 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 pl ates (for 10 birr, USD 1.25), water jugs (for 8 birr, USD 1.00), kitfo bo wls (for 1.5 birr, USD 0.20), and braziers (also for 1.5 birr). She sold her pottery mostly to Amha ra (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 deco rated, 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 feed ing center in Addis Ababa. Astela came to the city seven years ago as the first step on her journey to Israel. She is originally from Alefata Wusa, n ear Gorgora, where both her pare nts and her grandparents grew up. She never married, but has three sons. Astela learned pottery from he r mother, who was also a potte r. 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.

PAGE 177

177 Astela does not make pottery in Addis Abab a, 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, wa ter 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 t ypes of clay in her pots: walka and termite clay. Neither of these was easy to find in Alefata Wusa – the walka was far, “near the river,” and the termite clay was even farther than the walka “in high places.” She mixed the walka 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 siev ed until it was a very fine powder. When mixing the clays, she used rou ghly equal proportions – two handfuls of walka 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, whic h 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 wa ter jugs would have an appliqu ring at the throat. Astela learned these decorations from her mother.

PAGE 178

178 Depending on the season, the decorated pot woul d be dried outside between one and three days, then burnished with stones from the river. Distes and basins were bur nished on the interior and exterior surfaces, except for th e exterior base. Water jugs a nd kitfo bowls were burnished on the exterior and interior surfaces, including the exteri or base (the term “base” is used to refer to the rounded bottom of the water jugs). Incense ho lders 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 wa s mixed with water and a pplied 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 surf aces, except for the base. Water jugs were only slipped on the exterior surface, in cluding 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. Th ey would then be fired for an hour and a half. Large water jugs and basins were fired indi vidually, 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 (1.52 birr, USD 0.20-0.25), distes (1.5-3 birr, USD 0.20-0.40, depending on the size), larg e basins (15 birr, USD 1.85), braziers (2 birr, USD 0.25), and kitfo bowls (also 2 birr). Th e pottery she sold went mainly to Amhara (non-Beta Israel), as most of the Beta Israel families were making th eir 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.”

PAGE 179

179 Discussion From these interviews, some interesting conc lusions can be drawn. Most striking is the amount of similarity in technique found among thes e women, despite the fact that they come from different areas. All nine women use two types of clay to make their pottery: walka 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 walka by firing it and then grinding it into a fine powder. None of the wo men 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 pa rtially dried and been decorated, a nd tends to occur on the same vessel areas universally – only the tops of injera 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 kil n, and grass or chaff to cover the pots. Tools are only used for smoothing, burnishi ng, slipping, and adding decoration. The subject of decoration is, of course, particularly releva nt to this study. Again, there is remarkable similarity among the po tters in how the vessels are d ecorated. There seems to be general agreement about which vessels get deco ration; for example, no one decorates injera plates, incense holders or braziers. Decorati on methods are consistent, the dominant techniques being appliqu ridges or small l ugs, incised lines, and impressions made with a fingernail, stick or other small tool. Derecha and Wark also us e punctates, however, th ey are the only ones to

PAGE 180

180 mention this technique. Deco rative motifs are also very similar among the women, the dominant designs being horizontal lin es, either incised or appliqu, so metimes notched, and appliqu lugs. One salient point that emerged from the interv iews is the intentiona lity 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.” Th is is not an unusual re sponse 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 al so 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. Fo r 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 object 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 lookin g at style in the archaeological record is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine whet her 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 po ssibly know why any give n past person or group

PAGE 181

181 preferred one set of technologi cal choices over anot her – 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 convers ation. For this reason, an ethnoarchaeological approach to manufacturing techniques is pa rticularly suitable (David a nd 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 pitf alls of assuming the ethno graphic 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 isoc hrestic 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 opportuni ty to conduct ethnographi c 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 th e 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 pa tterns to emerge, there are so me significant differences as well. The first is how the walka is treated be fore it is mixed with th e second clay. All the women treat the termite clay/ cai afer before mixing it with the walka but some of the women treat the walka in some way before mixing as well, e ither 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 (Ale mit and Tuhuni) do not tr eat the walka at all before mixing it.

PAGE 182

182 Clay proportions also seem to vary among the women. Shashay, Astela, and possibly Nigiste, use roughly equal amounts of walka 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 walka Amenu uses a 2:1 walka to termite clay ratio; Tuhuni uses a 2:1 termite clay to walka ratio. Alemit uses a 3:4 walka 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 walka to termite clay ratios for injera plates, and 1:2 walka 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 wome n sprinkle ash over their work ar ea to keep the dirt of the ground from getting into the clay; neither Sh ashay nor Alemit do this. Alemu’s method for making the jebena spout was not practiced or described by any of the other potters. Another major difference is th e surface treatment of pots. Alemit was the only potter who did not burnish her pots, Shas hay and possibly Nigiste burnis h their pots twice – once with stones before firing, and again w ith shells between firings. Ne ither Shashay nor Nigiste apply slips to their pots; all the others do. Vessel parts that receive sli pping vary as well: for example, Amenu slips the entire body of her distes, incl uding the exterior base. Alemit and Tuhuni only slip the interior surfaces of thei r 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 firi ng, and others (Tuhuni and Al emit) slip their pots between the first and second firings.

PAGE 183

183 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 Tina sh would dig special pits for this; all the other potters would use the main house firing ar ea (also used for cooking and any other heating needs). Shashay and Nigiste do not cover the co oking pottery with any materials. Derecha, Wark, Amenu, Alemit, and Tuhuni cover the pots w ith dried grass while they are being fired; Tinash and Astela used chaff for this. Shashay a nd possibly Nigiste fire th eir injera plates twice – once on each side. All the othe r potters fire their injera plat es on one side only. Derecha’s, Wark’s, Amenu’s pots are fired once, overnight (f or 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 ar e fired for twelve hours, then slipped, then fired for another tw elve hours. Tuhuni’s pots are fired for two hours, then slipped, then fired for another two hours. Table 5-1 su mmarizes the similarities and differences in techniques displayed by the nine potters. The question of why such patterns of similari ty and variation occur must be addressed; unfortunately, the small sample size precludes us from maki ng 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 pr oduction location (which relates directly to the presence and types of inclus ions in the clays), surface treatment, and firing techniques. The reader w ill recall from Chapter 3 that style is not necessarily limited to those “non-functional” attributes of pottery – what Sackett (1982) ha s 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 He rbich 1998) – but may actually be seen in every aspect of the manufacturing pr ocess. The assignation of style to technological (i.e. “functional”)

PAGE 184

184 choices has traditionally been treated as a sepa rate or subgroup of st udies of style, called “technological style” (Childs 1991, Hosler 1994, Lechtman 1984, Lechtman and Merrill 1977), “technological choice” (Gosselain 1998, Lemonnie r 1992, 1993), or the “soc ial construction of technology” (Childs and Killick 1993); however, th e choices applied to th e so-called functional attributes of a vessel fall under th e general rubric of style, as much as do the more traditional “adjunct” domains of style su ch as form and decoration.30 Anthropologists who have studied technologica l 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 pa rticular technology from a pool of satisfactory alternatives may be strongly influenced by the belie fs, social structure, and prior choices of the group (Killick 2004; see also Childs and Killick 1993; Dietle r 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 a ddress the possibility that the variations in technologi cal choices observed in the potte rs 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 satisf actory 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 mate rial, and that these variations are distributed spatially; in other words, the pot tery varies most significantly fr om unit to unit. This supports 30 See Dietler and Herbich (1998) for a more detailed discu ssion of the dangers of artificially separating style, function, and technology. 31 However, it is crucial to note that no compositional stud ies were conducted on the et hnographic 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.

PAGE 185

185 the idea that these choices are directed by soci al, rather than technol ogical, forces, and that potters from related households (who may be members of the sa me family) tend to make the same choices. An examination of technological style in the archaeological record may provide valuable information about the cultural transmis sion 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 th e occupants of the excavated units (see Chapter 7). Spatial Patterns When examined spatially, it appears that th e major 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 othe r’s than to those of the other potters. The differences exhibited by Shashay and Nigiste in relation to the ot her potters may be a result of two factors: first, they are the only potters to be interviewed fr om Tadda; second, at least one of them is not a Beta Israel. Nigiste learned to ma ke pottery from the Beta Israel relatives of her husband, but Shashay claimed to have no rela tionship with any Beta Israel potters. Unfortunately, the interviews with both these wome n 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 majo r areas. Derecha, Wark, and Amenu said they come from Gojam – from the same village, although its name is unknown32; Alemit comes from Achefer, in Gojam, so she is placed in the Gojam category as we ll. 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

PAGE 186

186 come from Chilga. Astela comes from Alefat a Wusa, near Gorgora. Tinash’s maternal grandmother also came from Alefata Wusa, so we mi ght 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 geogr aphical area, the pattern that emerges immediately is that Alemit, who comes from Achefer, differs radi cally in her techniques from the other three potters who come from Gojam. In fact, the vast majority of commonalities found in the techniques of Derecha/Wark, Amenu and Al emit are common to all the potters interviewed, regardless of geographic origin. For example, al l four Gojam potters use two types of clay, and they all apply slips to their pot s; however, the potters from Chilga and Alefata Wusa do these things as well. There were no significant co mmon features found among the four potters from Gojam that were unique to the Gojam area. Much more relevant is the pattern that di d emerge: in many steps along the pottery-making process, Derecha/Wark and Amenu’s techniques we re the same, and Alemit’s were different. It appears at this very preliminary point that simila rities and differences ar e associated more with specific villages than with an overall region – Derecha, Wark and Amenu all came from the same (name unknown) village in Gojam; Alemit, although also from Gojam, 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 sh e uses termite clay. She is also the only Gojam potter to make diste lids. Derecha/Wark and Amenu all soak the walka in water before mixing it with the second clay; Alemit does not treat the walka at all. Derecha/Wark and Amenu all cover their work area with ash; Alemit doe s 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

PAGE 187

187 surface with stones from the river; Alemit uses her hands for smoothing, and does not burnish her pots. When applying slip to the pots, Am enu covers the entire vessel; Alemit only slips the interiors of her pots. (Data on where Derecha an d 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 major diffe rence: Alemit is the only Gojam potter to fire her pots twice. In only two areas did the pattern of Derech a/Wark/Amenu congruence diverge. First, Derecha/Wark and Alemit all use more termite clay/ cai afer in creating the clay mixture; Amenu uses more walka Second, in creating the neck of a vesse l, Wark uses the same technique as for the body: she draws the clay upwards from the ba se, and creates a narrowe r circumference at the top of the vessel. Amenu, however, uses a series of coils stacked one atop th e other, to create her vessel necks. Data on how Derecha and Alemit cr eate vessel necks were not collected, although we may surmise that DerechaÂ’s techni que was probably the same as WarkÂ’s. Chilga Although there are some similarities among the potters from Chilga (T uhuni and Tinash), like the Gojam potters, the differences are much mo re striking. There are no techniques that both Tuhuni and Tinash use that no ot her 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 TuhuniÂ’s termite clay, which she says is locally available, is the same as the other pottersÂ’ termite clay. Th e proportions of the clay are the same in both TuhuniÂ’s and TinashÂ’s mixtures: 2:1 termite clay to walka (except for in TinashÂ’s injera plates). Both women cover their work area with ash, and both made their pottery directly on the ground.

PAGE 188

188 However, there are more differences than si milarities in the techniques of the two women, and like in Gojam, this may be due to the fact that they are from two different villages in Chilga. Tuhuni is from Alefa, but TinashÂ’s specific village name is unknown. Tinash soaks her walka in water before mixing it with the termite clay; Tuhuni does not treat her walka 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 decora tions, 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 be tween the first and second firings. Tinash fired her pots once, applying slip beforehand. Tuhuni used the regul ar firing area of her house to cook her pots; Tinash would dig a special hole in the ground. And finally, Tuhuni would cover her pots with dried grass while they were c ooking; Tinash would use chaff. Alefata Wusa Astela was the only potter to come directly from Alefata Wusa, near Gorgora; however, TinashÂ’s maternal grandmother was also from th at village. Also a potter, she taught TinashÂ’s mother, who taught Tinash. Thus it may be that ma ny of TinashÂ’s practices stem from this area, rather than from Chilga. And in fact, the techniques pr acticed by Tinash and Astela are much more similar than those practiced by Tinash and Tuhuni, suggesting th at 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 walka by soaking it in water before mixing it with the termite clay. Both cover their work areas w ith ash to keep dirt from sticking in the clay.

PAGE 189

189 Both use tools for smoothing their pots – Tinash us es animal bones, and Astela uses dried animal skin. Both use a red clay for their slip, a differe nt type than the termite clay. In slipping their pots, both cover the same areas: fo r distes, the interior and exteri or 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 s lipped. Both Tinash and Astela fire their pots one time, for between and hour and a half and two hour s. 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 twi ce as much termite clay as walka when she is mixing the soils (except when she is making an injera plate – then the proportions are 4:3 termite clay to walka ). Astela uses roughly equal amounts of the two clay s, with possibly a littl e more termite clay. Second, Astela knows only a few decorations, an d she tends to use the same decorations on specific pots – for example, all her distes are d ecorated the same way. As we have seen, Tinash said she knows lots of decorations, and decora tes her pots based on her personal preference. However, this attribute was unique to Tinash among all the potters inte rviewed, and may not be an indicator of any pattern. Conclusions Because of the small sample size – only four potters from the Gojam area were interviewed, and this was the la rgest 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 dictat ed 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 Gojam, but

PAGE 190

190 there may be pottery making styles that are di agnostic of Achefer, Alefata Wusa, or possibly, Abwara Giorgis. Furthermore, the opportunity to speak with Tinash, who demons trated practices that seem to conform both to Chilga and to Alefata Wusa traditions, suggests two th ings. First, divergence in practices from generation to generation may not be as uncommon as these potters indicated, and second, given a large enough sa mple size to determine regiona l 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 doesnÂ’t provide any direct evid ence about techniques in Abwara Giorgis, but may give us some insight as to br oader patterns of confor mity/variation in pottery manufacture and decoration techniques. As for how the pottery techniques of thes e potters correspond to the archaeological material found at the AG 2004 site, there is remark able continuity. As I will show, the pottery overall is characterized by ho mogeneity, both through time and space, suggesting that the general pottery manufacturing techniques are shar ed 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, suggesti ng levels of individual style. This is explored further in Chapter 6.

PAGE 191

191 Table 5-1 Patterns in the ethnographic study Potter's name Origin Beta Israel? Walka treatment second clay 2nd clay treatment inclusion of grog? clay proportions Shashay Tadda unknown roast and grind cai afer none no more cai afer Nigiste Tadda no roast and grind cai afer none no more cai afer Derecha Gojam yes soak termite clay roast and grind yes more termite clay Wark Gojam yes soak termite clay roast and grind yes more termite clay Amenu Gojam yes soak termite clay roast and grind yes more walka

PAGE 192

192 Alemit Achefer (Gojam) yes none cai afer roast and grind yes more cai afer Tuhuni Alefa (Chilga) yes none termite clay? roast and grind no more termite clay Tinash Chilga/Alefata Wusa yes soak termite clay roast and grind no more termite clay Astela Alefata Wusa yes soak termite clay roast and grind no equal. More termite clay Table 5-1 continued Potter's name use of ash? burnishing tools to smooth? slip on diste ext slip on base # of firings 1st fire time 2nd fire time Shashay no twice no n/a no 2 .5-1 hour .5-1 hour Nigiste no twice no n/a no 2 .5-1 hour .5-1 hour Derecha yes yes yes uid no info1 overnight n/a Wark yes yes yes uid no info1 overnight n/a

PAGE 193

193 Amenu yes yes yes yes yes 1 overnight n/a Alemit no no yes no no 2 overnight overnight Tuhuni yes yes no no no 2 2 hours 2 hours Tinash yes yes yes yes no 1 2 hours n/a Astela yes yes yes yes no 1 1.5 hours n/a Figure 5-1 The Gonder Region. Source: Google Earth, TerraMetrics 2007

PAGE 194

194 Figure 5-2 Derecha making and decorating a diste

PAGE 195

195 Figure 5-3 Wark making and decorating a jebena

PAGE 196

196 Figure 5-4 Amenu making and decorating a jebena

PAGE 197

197 Figure 5-5 Lid for a diste Figure 5-6 TuhuniÂ’s roasted and ground termite clay

PAGE 198

198 CHAPTER 6 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Data Analysis All materials recovered were bagged and catal ogued according to provenience in the field (Appendix C). Once analysis began, artifacts we re 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, a nd brought to the United States for radiocarbon dating. All other materi als were catalogued, counted, and weighed, and stored in the National Museum in Addis Ababa (Appendix E). Pottery was initially sorted into two categor ies: diagnostic and nondiagnostic. Diagnostic pottery included decorated sherds and identifiable vessel parts, such as rims, bases, handles, and necks. Because of the enormous amount s of pottery recovered through excavation, nondiagnostic body sherds were not analyzed exte nsively. 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 Nati onal Museum in Addis Ababa. The pottery analysis addressed th e following attributes: 1) vessel part (i.e. rim, handle, body); 2) interior and exterior surface treatment; 3) deco rative 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 sh erd); 6) location of the decorati on on the sherd; 7) the percent of the sherd that was decorated; 8) exterior and interi or use alteration; 9) sherd thickness to the nearest 0.1 millimeter; 10) vessel type; 11) rim di ameter, if identifiable; 12) rim thickness, measured at 3 cm below the rim edge; 13) percen t of rim, if identifiable; 14) rim shape; 15) inclusion type; 16) inclusion angularity; 17) composition (i.e. inclusion percentage); 18)

PAGE 199

199 inclusion size; 19) sherd weight, to the nearest 0.1 gram; and 20) the existence of slip on the exterior of base sherds. Th ese 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 a ngularity and size were classified according to the 1984 W.F. McColl ough Sand Gauge. Inclus ion percentage was classified according to Mathew, Woods and Ol iverÂ’s (1991) Percentage Inclusion Estimation Chart. When the analysis was completed, profiles we re 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 pot tery analysis were put throu gh 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. Cros s tab analyses were run to look for associations between various attributes, and to look at how these character istics evolved over time. The data were analyzed statisti cally at several scales. The 14C dates vary between units, which suggests that not all of the units were o ccupied over the same tim e periods. Because of this, and because there is some question as to whet her unit J8 was the site of Beta Israel cultural activity during the time period in question, the po ttery analysis initiall y 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

PAGE 200

200 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 pa rtial 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 th e six units comprising the AG 2004 excavation was 15,046 sherds. Of these, 12,270 were undiagnos tic body sherds, without visible decoration. These sherds were counted and weighed (Appendi x F). They were distributed throughout the site as follows: 5,488 (45%) sh erds 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 – eith er 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 diagnos tic sherd distribution follows the same general pattern as the undiagnostic sher d 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 (312 sherds, or 11%), and J8 (194 sh erds, or 7%), for a total of 2,773 diagnostic sherds.34 The attributes of these were analyzed acco rding to the methods discussed below. The results of the analyses are presented later in this chapter. 33 In 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 di scussed 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.

PAGE 201

201 Pottery Attributes Vessel Form There are four major vessel types in Gondari ne pottery, according to my field crew and informants. Inseroch (singular insera ) are jars used for processing and storing food, water and beer, and come in various sizes. This is the only major 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. Mitadoch (singular mitad ) 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 ( mitadoch ) 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 (jars) come in different sizes, so ar e often not identifiable by rim diameter. Cross-tabs analyses suggest a correlation betw een vessel type and ri m diameter (Table 63). In general, mitad (plate) sherds tended to have the la rgest 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 ve ssel type is rim shape. The analysis identified 18 distinct rim sh apes in the AG 2004 sample (Figur e 6-2). In general, plates

PAGE 202

202 ( mitadoch ) are flat, and tend to have st raight rounded rims, often w ith 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 ri dge into which the lid may fit. Jars ( inseroch ) and coffee pots ( jebenoch ) tend to have restricted necks. The ne cks of jars are more flared than those of jebenoch (Figure 6-3). A third diagnostic feature may be surface trea tment. In the ethnographic portion of this research, there were certain patterns that emerge d in the way different vessel types were slipped. For example, plates were only slipped on the inte rior (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 th e potter’s hand to reac h inside. Slipping of inseroch (jars) varies: some were s lipped 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 treatme nt patterns seem to vary somewhat – for example, some insera 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, su rface 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 f eature is rim thickness;

PAGE 203

203 mitad 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 Et hiopian 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 iden tify a vessel form. Likewise, all four vessel types are used for cooking, so evidence of soot or charred f ood residue was not pa rticularly 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. Appe ndix 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 functio nal value, such as ma king the vessel stronger, and sometimes they are purely decorative (some times, of course, they serve both purposes). Four distinct methods of surface treatment were identified in the sample. Slipping refers to a thin veneer of wet clay applied over a semi-dry pot. Th is is often a slightly different color than the body of the vessel. Smoothing is done to create a finer and more regular surface immediately after the vessel is formed. This may be accomp lished with a variety of tools including leaves, sticks, clothes, leather, or the potterÂ’s hand. Burnishing is the process of rubbing the semi-dry vessel with a smooth hard object such as a pebble, sh ell, or bone. This give s the surface a luster.

PAGE 204

204 Polishing is similar to burnishing, ex cept it is conducted on a dr y 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 attribut es used by archaeologists to study “style” – the expressions of identity that might be encode d by the potter. This is because decoration has been defined as an attribute of po ttery 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 job for which it was created. Thus the choices that potters make when applying decoration are not necessarily dependent on issues of functionali ty – to the extent that they ma y 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 imagin ation and express her own ideas. Decoration is usually defined in te rms of its being “non-functional,” or purely aesthetic, which can lead to some confusion when atte mpting 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 f unctions 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 a pplication of a slip is “decorative,” or serves some utilitarian function, whether it should be considered embellishmen t or surface treatment? In conducting this research, I was fortunate to have an ethnogra phic and ethnohistorical component to rely on – potters who could tell me w hy they applied a slip to their vessels. And in fact, as I have shown (see Chapter 5), Beta Isr ael potters in the Gonder area apply slips in order to strengthen the vessel. Archaeologists do not al ways have access to this type of insight, thus we must be careful not to throw the term “decora tion” around. For the purposes of this research

PAGE 205

205 I defined decoration as markings applied to th e 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 reco rded 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 th e 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 thes e elements were observe d (Table 6-9). There appear to be correlations betw een decorative element and decorative method; for example, zigzag lines were always incise d. In addition, often two or more of these elements appeared together on a sherd (for example, an incised zi gzag 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 pa ste, 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 be en intentionally added by the potter to modify the properties of the clay; this may be probl ematic, obviously, because archaeologists cannot always determine whether inclusions in pottery we re 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 ques tion 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.

PAGE 206

206 archaeological materials, inclusions may be th e more accurate. And in fact, when I conducted interviews with Beta Israel po tters, I found that many of them did not intent ionally add materials to their clay; the inclusions present were a result of forming the pot on a di rt or ash surface, and picking up materials unintentiona lly. Present activities cannot be assumed to be analogous to past activities; thus, I refer to any components added to the clay in the Ab wara Giorgis pottery sample as inclusions – this allows for the possibi lity of either intentiona l 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. Analys is of the inclusions included angularity, size, and composition. Angularity, classified accordin g to the 1984 W.F. McCollough Sand Gauge, was categorized into round, angular, and subangula r. 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 ex terior surfaces of sherds can provide data concerning the functional aspects of a pottery assemblage. Correlation between use wear and vessel form can provide informati on pertaining to a particular shap e of vessel used for a specific function (Skibo 1992). Modification to a vessel su rface 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 us e alteration are the interior base, the interior sides, and the exterior base (R ice 1987), and different uses lead to different types of wear. Setting a full vessel on the ground may cause pitti ng on the exterior base of the vessel, and dragging it may cause exterior scratches (Ski bo 1992). Scratching can also occur on both the exterior and interior surfaces wh en the vessel is washed with an abrasive material (Skibo 1992). Sooting on the exterior of the vessel occurs as a result of the vesse l resting upon burning wood

PAGE 207

207 during cooking, and sooting on the interior surface develops afte r food residues are burnt (Hally 1983, Skibo 1992). Storing fermented materials, su ch as beer or dough, in a vessel can lead to interior pitting and erosion (Arthur 2000). B ecause postdepositional wear is common, use wear categories such as erosion, sooting, and rim chi pping may also be the result of postdepositional processes as well as use. It is important to take this into account. Although, as mentioned, use altera tion was of limited u tility in determining vessel type in the AG 2004 sample because of the multiple and overl apping functions of the main vessel types, usewear occurrences were recorded and are presen ted in this chapter as a general descriptive tool. As this represents the fi rst archaeological study of Beta Is rael pottery, it is important to record and present as much information as possibl e for future researchers. Within the Abwara Giorgis pottery sample, nine distinct types of us e alteration were identified. They were: erosion, pitting, scratches, cracking, spalling, sooting, rim chips, wear on handl es, and food residue. Types of use alteration were recorded as either on the interior or exteri or surface of the sherd; when this was not identifiable, this was noted a nd the use alteration was recorded as location uid (unidentified). In the following discussion of the pottery r ecovered 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 vess el 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 secti on. The discussion relating to vessel function focuses on use alteration.

PAGE 208

208 Unit A2 Vessel Types A total of 312 diagnostic potte ry sherds were recovered fr om unit A2, the majority of which (74.6%) were recovered fr om the upper two stratigraphic levels. There was a slight decrease in pottery below LS-L2, and a significan t decrease below LS-L3 (Table 6-10). This corresponds to the overall patter n of pottery distribution in A2 : the majority of pottery – diagnostic and undiagnostic – was recovered from the upper two levels (see Table 6-1). Eighty-nine of the analyzed sherds were a ssigned to specific ve ssel types based on the major attributes discussed above (Table 6-7). A ll four of the major vesse l 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 majority of identifiable vessels we re recovered from the upper three stratigraphic levels (Table 6-7); only one diste sherd and one mitad 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 insera and diste sherds remained relatively constant suggesting that the frequency of manufacture and/or use of these vessel types has not significantly changed th roughout this period. Mitad 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 pl astic have become more readily available, they have largely replaced pottery as the materials for basic household tools. However, injera plates ( mitadoch ) are the one type of pottery vessel that is still regularly made and used.

PAGE 209

209 Overall, this unit is characterized by continuity in vessel type over time. At the same time, the increase in mitad 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 unit. Vessel Form Vessel wall thickness The mean sherd thicknesses by level are pres ented in Table 6-5. These wall thicknesses conformed generally to the means observed sitewide ; they all lay within tw o 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 fa ct that these are hand-formed vessels – which precludes the production of identic al vessels – this is considered a normal level of variation, and not indicative of a shift in manufacturing techniques. Inclusions All four inclusion types (qua rtz, 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 wa s present in a sherd, grog and ash inclusions were one of the more common combinations (alo ng with grog and mica, and grog and quartz). These inclusion patterns are inte resting, particularly the high numb er of sherds with grog, and the number of sherds with both ash and grog, becau se they correspond well to the data that were collected during interviews with Beta Israel pott ers. Most of the women sprinkle ash over their work area before beginning to make a pot – this keeps the clay from s ticking to the floor, and

PAGE 210

210 may explain why ash appears as an inclusion in the archaeological sample. In addition, several of the women interviewed described prepari ng one of the types of clay, either the walka 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 presen ce 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 vi sible). 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 wa s 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 pa tterns were associated with specific vessel types (Figure 6-8). Plates ( mitad ) were overwhelmingly found to ha ve slip on the interior (top) surface and burnishing on the exterior (bot tom) surface; this corresponds well to the ethnographic evidence (see Chapter 5). What is in teresting 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 slip ping on both surfaces of the plate. Over time, the surface treatment patterns of mitad sherds remained relativ ely constant, although the prevalence of sherds slipped on both surfaces incr eased significantly above LS-L2; this appears to be a comparatively recen t practice (Table 6-12).

PAGE 211

211 Diste sherds were found to be primarily slipped on both the interior a nd exterior surfaces of the vessel, although a significant percentage we re 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 ex terior 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 finish ed (Table 6-12). The middle levels of this unit (LS-L2 and LS-L 3) 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 domin ant 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 (jar) sherds were also overwhelmingly slipped on both surfaces, and here we see a significant departure from the ethnographic evidence. Of th e three women interviewed who make the insera all three said they only apply slip to th e exterior surface of th is vessel type; the interior surface is smoothed as the pot is being fo rmed, and burnished if the mouth of the pot is large enough for them to reach inside. Less than half the insera sherds identified in unit A2 conformed to this pattern. However, it must be pointed out that only three potters spoke about making the insera 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 exte rior that appears in LS-L1. The second, which occurs concurrently with the first, is th e abandonment of interior burnishing and exterior

PAGE 212

212 slipping above LS-L2. Unlike diste sherds, the treatment of insera sherds is characterized by a growing range of choices in LS-L2 and LS-L1. Only one jebena sherd was identified, and the surf ace treatment pattern exhibited – slipping on the exterior surface only and smoot hing on the interior – conforms to both the ethnographic results and to logic – it is unlikely th e potter’s hand will fit in the narrow neck of the jebena to slip the inte rior surface. Overall, there is a general trend towards great er diversity in surface treatment options in recent years (Figure 6-9). Levels 1 through 3 ar e characterized by a wider range of types of treatment than the earlie r levels. This shift to more divers ity in surface treatment corresponds to the major 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 appliqu line. This was usually placed around the exterior body or nec k. Also common was a series of incised or grooved straight lines, or a groupi ng of incised straight horizontal and zigzag lines. Straight incised lines tended to occur in pairs, usually on the exterior body. Gr ooved 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 ho rizontal lines, at other times, horizontal lines were placed above the zigzag line (Figure 6-7).

PAGE 213

213 Cross-tabs analyses did not reveal any clear associations between decoration type and vessel type. However, as only 13 decorated sher ds could be assigned to a specific vessel type, this extremely small sample size may not neces sarily tell us anything about whether an association exists. In fact, the in terviews of Beta Israel potters (C hapter 5) suggest that there are certain decorations that are associated with certain vessel types – for example, jars often have an appliqu line around the throat – so this is an ar ea where more research needs to be conducted. And in fact, a graphic representa tion of the relationship between decoration and vessel type does reveal one pattern – the absolute lack of decoration on mitad (plate) sherds (Figure 6-11). This was the only vessel type to never exhibit decora tion, which corresponds to what the Beta Israel potters told me during our interviews. Most of the decorations appeared on the exte rior 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 nec k, exterior base, handle, shoulder, interior rim, exterior throat, interior and exterior rim, ex terior body and rim, and exteri or body and neck. Table 6-14 summarizes the distribution of decoration on vessel bodies. An examination of the A2 pottery decorati on over time as presented graphically suggests some patterns (Figure 6-12). Undecorated potte ry, 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 be ginning in LS-L4 (see Table 6-10) The decrease from LS-L2 to LS-L3, on the other hand, is not merely a reflec tion of an overall artif act decrease; overall, pottery appeared in only sli ghtly lower frequencies in LS-L3 than in LS-L2, yet undecorated

PAGE 214

214 pottery is reduced by over 50% fr om one level to the next. Th ere 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 potte ry in the upper levels of unit A2, there is also an increase in decoration types. In le vels LS-L1 through LS-L3 there is a much wider variety of decoration types than in the lower levels ; in fact, the only decora tions to appear in the two lowest levels were appliqu lines (F igure 6-12). Incised decorations were found predominantly in levels LS-L2 and LS-L3, while appliqu 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 structur e in the southwest corner and corresponding firing 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 ar e some interesting patterns over time here as well. Either a single or multiple appliqu lines were found in ev ery 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 wa s the only level to yield an incised wavy line on appliqu, multiple incised line s on the interior and exterior rim, incised horizontal and v-overlap lines a single incised horizont al line, and fingernail or stick crescents. Likewise, incised zigzag lines, a nd incised horizontal and vertical lines are only present in LSL2. A dragged impressed wavy line motif and finger 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.

PAGE 215

215 What to make of these distributions? The ove rwhelming pattern in th is 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 radi ocarbon 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 th e 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 with in the period marked by the fall of Gonder and the beginning of the Era of the Princes, a peri od of political, social and economic readjustment for Gonder society in general and th e 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 su rface treatment types in th e 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. Howe ver, it is important to note the extremely small sample si ze in this analysis. Most of the patterns presented here are based on the presence of between one and three potte ry sherds. It is premature to form any firm conclusions before more research is undertaken.

PAGE 216

216 Vessel Function As mentioned, use alteration is of limited utility in providi ng insight about vessel function, because of the generalized functi onal nature of most Gondarine vessels. Within the A2 pottery sample, specific types of use alte ration were not limited to specifi c vessel types, although some vessel types were more associated with us ewear 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 proc esses 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 usew ear (when it was present, it took the form of erosion or scratches), and interior eros ion and pitting. Again, this is consistent with modern insera use – they mainly store water or ferm ented liquids such as beer. Mitad sherds were mainly characterized by exterior erosion and dull s oot. The interior (or top) surfaces of mitad sherds usually showed no usewear; when it was present it wa s usually in the form of scratches. Again, this suggests that mitad functions in the past were similar to those today – the pl ate sits directly on the fire, and the injera 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 s uggest 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 altera tion on either surface. Other than this isolated occurrence, the types and locations of use altera tion on specific vessel types has re mained constant (Table 6-15). The vast majority of non-vessel specific sherds exhibited some type of use alteration, on either one or both surfaces. The most common us e alteration pattern on th e exterior surface of

PAGE 217

217 the sherds was nothing – 38.3% of the A2 asse mblage showed no usewear on the exterior surface. When evidence of usewear was visibl e on the exterior surface, it was most commonly erosion. The other types of usewear identified on the exterior surf aces appeared in significantly smaller numbers than did erosion: dull-colored s oot, 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 indi cate 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) th is 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 we re 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 freque ncies 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 su rface; 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 pr evalence of erosion, particularly on the exterior surfaces of the vessels, suggests that postdepos itional factors may have play ed a significant part. Unit C4 Vessel Types A total of 472 diagnostic potte ry sherds were recovered fr om unit C4, the majority of which (71.8%) were recovered from the upper tw o stratigraphic levels. Level LS-L3 was characterized by an enormous d ecrease 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).

PAGE 218

218 Most of the recovered dia gnostic pottery consis ted of rim sherds (Table 6-2), which proved useful in assigning 159 sherds to specific ve ssel types (Table 6-7). The majority of these identifiable sherds we re parts of plates ( mitadoch ); however, it is important to note that the large number of plates is probably due more to the eas ily identifiable characteristic of plates than to the overwhelming number of actual pl ates in the sample. In other words, because they tend to be thick and flat, with thick rims, mitadoch 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 majority of identifiable vessels were r ecovered 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 mitad sherds found in LS-L4; this is likely at least partly due to the strongly di agnostic characteristics of mitad sherds, as discussed previously. Within levels LS-L1 and LS-L2, the frequency ratio s of vessel type to ove rall diagnostic pottery remain relatively constant (Table 6-7). LS -L3 is characterized by significantly higher percentages of identifiabl e vessels, and in LS-L4, th e ratios are more similar to those found in the upper two levels, with the exception of mitad sherds. The fact that these increases and decreases in vessel types occur for all three of the ve ssel types found in this unit suggests that the manufacture of specific vessel types has not significantly ch anged over time (for example, we do not see a growing preference for inseroch while mitad sherds remain constant). Instead, this pattern suggests overall continu ity in terms of the types of vessels made and used over time in this unit.

PAGE 219

219 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 insera sherds, fall beyond two standard deviations of such. In fact, insera sherds in this unit display a much wi der 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 size s, from very large water jars to very small jars. This may be another indicator of changing techniques to meet changing needs, a diversification in production to meet the demands of a larger a nd more diverse market. However, no insera sherds were recovered from the lower levels of the unit, so we cannot compare thes e patterns to earlier patterns. A similar pattern is found in mitad 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 la rger 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 (quart z, mica, grog, and ash) were identified in the C4 sample (Table 6-11). Like the pottery in unit A2, gr og was by far the most common inclusion type, ash

PAGE 220

220 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 ma y be due to the clay preparation techniques described by the Beta Isr ael 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 prev alent inclusion type, and the other three types appeared much less frequently, and in roughly equa l frequencies. Both of these also correspond well to the ethnographic data gathered from interv iews with Beta Israel potters. Taking those interviews into account, as well as the infre quent 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 (oth er 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 potterÂ’s home, sometimes w ith 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 visibl e surface treatment). All the sh erds in this assemblage had surface treatment on at least one side; in fact, the overwhelming majority 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 in terior 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 A 2, although no sherds were identified that were smoothed on both sides (Table 6-12).

PAGE 221

221 An examination of surface treatment by vessel ty pe 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 ex terior, 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 majority of my informants (see Chapter 5). In LS-L3, the insera sherds recovered exhibited slips on th e exterior surfaces only; interior surfaces were either smoothed or burnished. Sl ipping on both the exterior and interior surfaces appeared in LS-L2, and in LS-L1, this was the dominant insera surface treatment pattern. Two sherds with the interior and exterior slip pa ttern were recovered fr om LS-L3a; however, the reader will recall from Chap ter 4 that this lens likely represen ts 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 insera surface treatment patterns; five different combinations of interior/exterior treatments were identified on insera sherds in LS-L2, although all of these except one were slipped on the exterior surface. This increased diversity in the surface treatment of insera sherds in the upper levels of unit C4 corresponds to a simila r 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 patte rns practiced today, indicating a level of

PAGE 222

222 continuity in manufactur ing techniques. For insera sherds, this is not th e case. Most of my informants did not apply slip to the interior surfaces of their inseroch ; those surfaces were either smoothed or burnished – a practi ce that appears to have been largely abandoned in the recent years of this unit. This disparity between ethnographic and archaeologi cal evidence in the surface treatment of insera sherds is also seen in unit A2, as well as in the ot her units, discussed later. It appears that one of two things is occurring: 1) af ter a period of time in which insera vessels were slipped all over, pot ters 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 pott ers from different villag es. Although there are strong parallels between the ethnographic and arch aeological materials in many facets of this analysis, the surface treatment of insera sherds is clearly an area of divergence. Mitad sherds tended to show the widest rang e 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 exteri or. Interior s lipping/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, mitad sherds show the least amount of variation over time of all the vessel types sitewide; in every le vel there is a range of surface treatment choices utilized. Thes e options increase slightly in the upper levels, but compared to insera and diste sherds from this unit, mitad sherds do not exhibit the same shifts in diversity

PAGE 223

223 over time. This may be because it is the most pur ely functional vessel type – issues of style are not applied to the same extent. In examining identifiable vessel types and uni dentifiable 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 (pla in). 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 ex terior, or the reverse, slipping the interior and burnishing the exterior, have remained relative ly constant through time. Although no absolute dates can be assigned to these levels yet, th e 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 variet y may indicate an overa ll 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 identifi ed, and 21 distinct decorative types (Table 613). Like unit A2, the most common decorations ar e the single appliqu lin e (either horizontal or unidentified in terms of orientation), multiple ap pliqu 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 appliqu line usually appeared on either the exterior body or running horizontally around the exterior th roat of the vessel. Multiple appliqu lines also usually

PAGE 224

224 appeared either on the exterior body or exte rior neck. Multiple incised lines were overwhelmingly placed on the exterior body of th e 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 (F igure 6-11). It is interesting to note that all but one of these decorated sherds belonged to an insera (jar) (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 appliqu lines on the insera vessels’ exterior throats, necks, shoulders a nd bodies; multiple appliqu lines, which only appeared on insera necks; multiple horizontal incised lines on the interior and exterior neck, one occurrence of finger impr essions on an appliqu 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 (jars) are often deco rated with horizontal appliqu or incised lines. Again, this correspond s well to the decoration patterns observed in the Gonder interviews. The majority of the decoration in the unit C4 pottery occurred on th e 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 interi or, 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 additio nal element, a zigzag line, criss-cross lines, or a concentric U, on one surface (Figure 6-14).

PAGE 225

225 A graphic representation of decorative types in the C4 sample over time reveals some broad patterns (Figure 6-15). Unlike unit A2, th e 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 th e northern half of the unit (see Figure 4-25), is the ex ception to this pattern; undecorate d pottery made up only 58% of this assemblage. Similar to unit A2, the range of pottery deco ration types increases over time, although the shifts are more gradual in this unit. LS-L2 cont ains the widest range of decorative types (Figure 6-15). There are several decorative types that appear in every level of this unit: a single appliqu line, multiple appliqu lines, and multiple incise d lines. Of these, only the single appliqu line becomes more prevalent in the uppe r levels. Multiple appliqu lines decrease in frequency in recent years, and multiple incised lines decreas e in LS-L2 and then increase to previous frequencies again in LS-L1. For the decorative types that appear less c onstantly 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, app liqu lugs, incised vert ical and wavy lines, multiple incised horizontal lines and concentric U, and alternating finger pinching and finger impressions. Conversely, there are several decora tions that are only pres ent in LS-L3 or above: the incised horizontal and zigzag lines, the si ngle 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 pinna cle in LS-L3 and LS-L2. Further, we see

PAGE 226

226 increased complexity of decorative types dur ing 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 corr esponds 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 dive rsification is nearly identical to that noted in th e 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 t ypes of wear were more characteristic of some vessel types than othe rs (Table 6-15). Distoch (bowls) tended to have a much wider range of usewear markings than did mitadoch (plates) or inseroch (jars), 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 characteri zed by no use alteration, erosion, pitting, scratches, dull soot, glossy soot, wear on handles and rim chips. Plates ( mitadoch ) were most likely to have no interior usewear, and interi or scratches most commonly characterized those that did. The exte rior surfaces of plates were most commonly eroded, sometimes with pitting, cr acking or dull soot. Jars ( inseroch ) tended to exhibit interior erosion, scratches, and pitting. Most jars ha d no exterior use alteration. When there was evidence of usewear on the exterior surface of a jar, it was most commonly erosion. Scratching, rim chips, and wear on handles was also found on so me jar sherds. All of these usewear patterns are consistent with the know n functions of the vessels. There was little evidence to s uggest that the primary functions of any of the three major vessel types have significantly ch anged 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

PAGE 227

227 tend to be more types of wear on any given ve ssel type. For example, in LS-L1, nine mitad sherds were recovered; these exhi bited one of two categories of ex terior 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 erosi on, 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 sh ift 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 im portant 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 pa tterns – suggests that pottery within the Beta Israel household associated with unit C4 was bei ng used for a wider variety of purposes than in earlier years. This pattern is also visibl e in units J3 and F7G7, discussed below. Within the assemblage of non-vessel specific sh erds, the majority exhibited some type of usewear, usually on both the interior and exteri or surfaces (Table 6-16). The most common pattern on the exterior su rface 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.

PAGE 228

228 The interior surfaces of the C4 pottery we re also most often characterized by no use alteration. When usewear was identified, erosion, a nd scratches appeared in roughly equal frequencies. Pitting, rim chips, and carbon deposits – possibly food residue – were found in much smaller frequencies. These patter ns correspond well to t hose found in unit A2. When the potsherd itself was the unit of an alysis, 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 interi or 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 incl uded 1) interior scratches w ith no exterior usewear; 2) interior and exterior erosion; a nd 3) interior scratches and exteri or erosion. These patterns were also common in the A2 sample. Unit J3 A total of 501 diagnostic sherds were rec overed from unit J3, the majority 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 lithostra tigraphic level is underscored by particular artifact characteristics. LS-L5, with it s 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 majority of the pottery recovered from this unit, and therefore likely represent the major period of activity in this area of the s ite. 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 repres ents the bottom level of a secon d, later household than the one(s)

PAGE 229

229 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 recove red 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 pot tery 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 th is 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 mitad (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 mitadoch as to the actual high frequency of mitad sherds in the sample. Diste, insera, and jebena sherds were also identified, as well as three spin dle whorls, two of which were recovered in LSL1, the third from LS-L5. The majority of the identifiable vessels were recovered from LS-L3 and LS-L4 (Table 67), 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 patt erns over time, rather than incr easing or decreasing uniformly. Insera sherds make up a higher percentage of the po ttery assemblage in th e upper levels than in the lower; they become more frequent over time. Conversely, mitad sherds become much less frequent over time. This is especi ally significant because, as mentioned, mitadoch (injera plates) are the one major pottery vessel that has not be en 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

PAGE 230

230 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 frequencie s differs than those of the previous units discussed, it also fits into the general model of economic diversific ation at Abwara Giorgis. This unit exhibits clear changes in the numbers of inseroch distoch and mitadoch being made at any given period. Again, potters may have been responding to the dema nds of a changing and diversified market. Appendix G summarizes the characteristics of specific vessel types in this unit. Vessel Form Vessel wall thickness and rim diameter The mean sherd thicknesses by vessel type a nd 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), howev er, on average, the walls of th ree of the major vessel types ( insera mitad 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 th e upper levels of unit J3. In fact, LS-L1 is characterized by an enormous range in insera vessel wall thickness, with a minimum of 5.8 mm and a maximum of 40.5 mm; this is the only ex ample 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 co nstant through time (Table 6-5). The drastic increases in thickness range obser ved in unit C4 are not present here, and the mean thickness rarely varies more than approxi mately 4 mm. This is consider ed a normal level of variation

PAGE 231

231 based on the method of vessel production. Overal l, vessel wall thicknesses are more or less homogenous through time. In contrast to vessel wall thic kness, 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. Mitad sherds show similar patterns over time, as do i nsera sherds, although it is LS-L3 which shows the widest range of insera mouth sizes. These ranges in LS-L3 and LSL4 are suggestive of a period in the lower levels of this unit in which distoch, mitadoch, and inseroch were made and/or used in a wide variety of sizes, a level of divers ity that decreased in the upper levels. Again, this seems to support the idea of a peri od 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 di scussed, 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 a nd C4, in which ash made up a mu ch smaller percentage of the inclusions (12.8% and 16.5%, respectively). Mica also appeared more frequently in the pottery of unit J3, app earing in 28.7% of the pottery. Compare this again w ith 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.

PAGE 232

232 When multiple inclusions were visible, the most common combinations were grog and ash, and grog and mica. The prevalence of grog, both al one and with other incl usions, 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 trea tment 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 majority showed treatment on both sides (Table 6-12). Each vessel type from J3 was characterize d by a range of surface treatment patterns; however, certain vessel types were more strongly associated with sp ecific treatments than with others (Figure 6-8). Plate ( mitad ) sherds were most commonly s lipped 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 mitad sherds is only found in the lower levels of the un it (Table 6-12). In LS-L1 it wa s abandoned entirely in favor of other treatments, namely slipping on both surfaces. In general, LS -L4 is characterized by a range of mitad 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 burnish ing, and interior sli pping/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 tr eatment options increase significantly, the

PAGE 233

233 dominant pattern shifts to interi or and exterior slipping; this remains the dominant pattern for diste sherds in the upper levels. Like units A2 and C4, in rece nt 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 patte rns found in these levels, primarily in LS-L3, correspond to similar increas es in the other units. Insera sherds were also commonly slipped on both surfaces, but here th e range of surface treatment options found in the lower levels of th e unit does not decrease significantly in recent years. There are several major shifts in insera surface treatment over time (Table 6-12). While interior and exterior slipping is present at every level, it de creases drastically above LS-L4. Some patterns, such as interior burnish/exterior slip and interior smooth/ exterior burnish are only found in the lower two levels. Ot hers, namely interior/exterior burnish, interior/exterior smooth, and interior smooth/exterior sli p, are only present in the upper two levels. It seems evident that there was a shift from LS-L3 to LS-L2, the lowe r two levels representi ng 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 diversit y that shifts towards uniformity; instead, the diversity remains through the upper levels of J3. When examining identifiable vessel types a nd unidentifiable sherds together, surface treatment patterns over time confor m to those identified in units A2 and C4 (Figure 6-16). From LS-L4 to LS-L3 there is a mark ed increase in the range of surface treatment options, although this diversity does not decrease ag ain in the upper levels, as it does in the other units. Again, this

PAGE 234

234 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 un its A2 and C4, was the si ngle appliqu straight line, usually horizontal in direction. Also co mmon were the multiple incised lines and multiple appliqu lines (Table 6-13). No strong association was found between vesse l type and decoration type although, as only 17 decorated sherds could be assign ed to vessel types, this small sample size must be taken into account (Figure 6-11). While mitad (plate) sherds never had any decoration, that is the only consistent pattern found in this sample. Distoch (bowls) were found to va ry widely in the types of decoration they carried; these included incised horizontal lines, incised zigzag lines, appliqu circles, impressed lines, fingernail crescents, and round finger impressions. Inseroch (jars) showed slightly less variabilit y, and were primarily characteri zed by appliqu horizontal lines, incised horizontal lines, and in cised zigzag lines. The one jebena in this sample was decorated with an appliqu horizontal lin e around the vessel shoulder. Fi gure 6-17 presents examples of the different decorative types identified in this unit. Most of the decorations occurr ed on the exterior body of the ve ssel, the exterior rims and shoulders. Five sherds were d ecorated on both the exterior and in terior 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 presen t 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, a lthough in this unit the peak occurs in the

PAGE 235

235 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 devia tions), so it is probable that LS-L4 and LS-L3 represent the rise of the Gonder Era. Furtherm ore, the shift in artifact types over time from LSL4 to LS-L3 (notably, the abrupt appearance of metal and slag in LS-L3, see Chapter 4) suggests that these two levels may repres ent the fall of the G onder 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 th eir lowest in LS-L4, the level that seems to represent the transition to and early years of the major occupation period of this unit. Undecorated pottery then increase s 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 undecora ted pottery is the shar p increase from LS-L4 to LS-L3. In terms of specific decorative types, LS-L4 contained the mo st variety (Figure 6-18). Many types, including the appliq u circle, the finger impressi ons, the incised wavy line below the appliqu line, and the finger pinches and finger impressions, onl y appear in this level. In addition, several of the multi-component decorati ons – horizontal and diagonal lines, horizontal and zigzag lines along rims, horiz ontal and v-overlap lines – eith er disappear or become much sparser above level LS-L4, a patt ern also observed in unit C4. Again, this large range of decorative options (corresponding roughly to the diversity in surface tr eatment options) during the peak years of this site’s occupation is c onsistent with the mode l of pottery producers responding to the demands of a large and diverse ma rket. This seems to fit the behavior of a

PAGE 236

236 group of people making an active attempt to assimilate themselves within a la rger 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 mitad (plate) sherds both displayed a range of interior use alteration, includi ng erosion and scratches. Mitadoch tended to exhibit carbon deposits and cracks as well; distoch tended towards pitting and rim chips. Insera (jar) sherds were characterized by erosion, pit ting, and scratches (Table 6-15). The exterior surfaces of diste sherds were overwhelmingl y unaltered, with infrequent occurrences of erosion and pitting. Insera and mitad sherds were also primarily characterized by no wear, although to a lesser extent than diste sherds. Insera sherds sometimes exhibited exterior erosion, scratches, and dull soot. Mitad 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 primar y functions of each ve ssel type have changed over time (Table 6-7). However, similar to uni t C4, there is a significa ntly 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 ex terior 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) manu facture of pottery vessels. Within the entire J3 pottery sample (identifie d vessel types and unident ified sherds alike), most of the sherds exhibited usewear on at le ast 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

PAGE 237

237 assemblage exhibited no use alte ration 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, spalling, rim chips, and cracking were al l 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. Agai n, when usewear was visible, it was most commonly erosion or scratches. Interior pitting wa s also relatively common, and car bon deposits and/or identifiable food residue were identified on si x sherds. Other use alteratio n types included rim chips, cracking, and spalling. When the potsherd itself was the unit of anal ysis, the most common patterns appeared to be usewear on one side of the vesse l only; for example, erosion on th e interior surface or exterior surface only, with no evidence of usewear on the ot her side. Only two other interior-exterior usewear patterns appeared in more than 4.0% of th is sample: interior scratching with no exterior use wear, and erosion on both the in terior and exterior surface. Th ese are very similar to the use alteration patterns found in units A2 and C4. Unit J8 Vessel Types Unit J8 had the shallowest deposit of the si x fully excavated units of AG 2004. It also contained the smallest amount of pottery. A tota l 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 we re analyzed separately, and are included in the general discussion of pottery attr ibutes; however, in looking at ch anges over time, these sherds were excluded. Of the rest of the assembla ge, the majority (82.5%) was recovered from LS-L1

PAGE 238

238 (Table 6-10). This supports the supposition that this area of the site was not occupied until recently. Based on the attributes discu ssed throughout this chapter, 32 sherds were assigned to specific vessel types (Table 6-7). Plates ( mitadoch ), being the most recognizable, made up the majority of this identified sa mple, although identified jars ( inseroch ) were almost as numerous. The remaining sherds were classified as distoch (bowls). Consistent with the overall pottery distribution of this unit, the vast majority 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 s ite, it also precludes us from dr awing any strong conclusions about changes in vessel types over time It is significant that no insera sherds were recovered from LSL4, which contained both diste and mitad 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 sligh tly 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 insera wall thickness and in range in the upper le vel of that unit; it may indicate a recent diversification of insera sizes that are produced and used.

PAGE 239

239 Mitad sherds tend to be thinner in this unit than in the other units, a lthough still primarily lying within two standard deviati ons 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, mitad sherds appear to have become significantly thinner in recent years. The mean mitad thickness in LS-L4 of J8 is r oughly consistent with the mean mitad thickness found in the upper levels of the other un its, particularly A2 and C4 (Table 6-7). This suggests that LSL4 of unit J8 may be contemporary with LS-L1 a nd 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 pr esent in the pottery of this uni t. Like the other units at AG 2004, grog was by far the most common type of incl usion, appearing alone in some sherds, and with other inclusion materials in others (Table 611). 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 fre quent 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 frequenc ies 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 sher ds had some type of surface treatment – either a slip, burnishing, or smoothi ng. 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).

PAGE 240

240 The most common finish pattern in this unit was slip on both the in terior and exterior surface; other common patterns were, of course, s lip 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 pr eviously discussed units. All the sherds that were classified as insera (jar) 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 type s 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 materi als within it lack provenience. Table 6-12 summarizes the other levels. A graphic representation of surface treatme nt 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 cont rast 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 household(s) associated with unit J8 were continuing to apply surf ace treatment to both sides of their vessels, instead of l eaving 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 app liqu 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 orientati on (horizontal or vertical); howev er, throughout the site horizontal appliqu lines have been common while vertical and diagonal appli qu lines have been virtually

PAGE 241

241 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 st raight 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 fingernail crescent motif, and one episode of finger dimpling on an appliqu line (Figure 6-20). Most of the decorations occu rred on the exterior vessel body, although the exterior rim was also frequently decorated. Infr equent episodes of d ecoration on the exterior neck, interior body, and interior rim were recorded. Two sherds with decoration on both the in terior and exterior rim were found; on both of these sherds the decoratio n consisted of multiple incised horizontal lines running around the top of the rim. When looking at changes over time, the read er will note that 82.5% of the pottery recovered from this unit was situated in LS-L1 (T able 6-10). Only 34 di agnostic pottery sherds were recovered in LS-L2 through LS-L4a, and ten of these were recovere d 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 we re decorated. This makes any discussion of change in decoration over time premature. It is likely, considering the sh allowness of this deposit, that LS-L1 represents the first establishment of a household in that particular s pot. It is also likely that this establishment occurred relatively recently, a lthough as no radiocarbon dates have yet been obtained for this unit, no firm conclusions can be drawn.

PAGE 242

242 Vessel Function In unit J8, all but 27 sherds had use alterati on on at least one side ; 59.3% of the sherds showed wear on both sides. Mitad (plate) sherds tended to have the widest variety of exterior usewear, including erosion, soot, pitting, and scra tches; however, the only interior usewear observed on mitad sherds was scratching. Conversely, insera sherds displayed a wide variety of interior usewear, including er osion, pitting, and scratches, but the only wear observed on insera exterior surfaces was either er osion 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 t hose 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, particul arly 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 major shift in the functions of the main vessel types; furthe r, all of the use alteration, both interior and exterior, corresponds well to the known modern uses of these major vessel types, suggesting that vessel functions have not changed significantly over time. Within the entire J8 pottery sample, identifiab le vessel types and unidentified sherds alike, the majority exhibited some type use alteration, us ually on both the interior and exterior surfaces (Table 6-16). Most of the ex terior surfaces of sherds s howed 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 occurre d on less than 5% of the sample. Interior use alteration patterns in this sample were si milar, although a broader range of usewear was found on the interior surfaces, as mi ght be expected. Most sherds exhibited no

PAGE 243

243 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 le ss 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 erosi on on both the interior a nd exterior surfaces, or erosion on one (unidentified) surface and no visibl e wear on the other. Th e pattern of interior erosion and no exterior wear wa s also relatively common, as was the reverse: exterior erosion and no interior wear. These were the only use al teration 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 majority of pottery was classified into only a few usewear categories. Units F7 and G7 Because units F7 and G7 were immediately adjacent and shared some features, and because several reconstructed vessels had sherds th at came from both units, the majority of these two units are considered to be parts of the same residential unit; thus, the pottery was analyzed together. However, as discusse d in Chapter 4, these two units we re more complex than the other excavated units, and some areas of G7 may have represented different residences. In order to preserve the integrity of potenti ally 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 po ssible feature, a single row of large rocks (see Figure 4-10). It is possible this area represents a separate residential unit; 3) in

PAGE 244

244 the lowest levels of G7, the eas t and west halves of the unit we re 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 artifact s. Thus, the four diag nostic sherds recovered from G7-East were incorporated into the F7G7 pottery assemblage for analysis. G7-West may have represented a separate residential unit. Th e twelve sherds recovered from that area were analyzed separately. The pottery fr om this part of the site is t hus 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 rec overed from unit F7G7, the majority (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 assemb lage were assigned to specific vessel types based on the main attributes – rim diameter, ri m shape, sherd thickness, rim thickness, surface treatment, and use alteration (Tab le 6-7). Of these, only r im thickness was strongly diagnostic of particular vessel types. As in the other units, plate ( mitad ) sherds tended to have the thickest rims, averaging at approximately 18 mm, and jars ( 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 ( mitadoch ) decrease slightly in frequency in the upper

PAGE 245

245 levels of this unit, making up only 4% of the pot tery in LS-L1, compared to 9.5% of the LS-L5 pottery assemblage. Although the change in fre quency is never overly large for any vessel type (the frequencies don’t tend to vary more than approximately 6%), the fact that mitad sherds decrease while insera and diste sherds increase suggests that in F7G7 the manufacture of specific vessel types has in fact changed over time; speci fically, the manufacture of injera plates has decreased relative to the manufact ure frequencies of the other vesse l types. This is the only unit to show such a pattern of change in vessel type manuf acture over time. Vessel form Vessel wall thickness: The mean vessel wall thicknesses fo r each vessel type are presented in Table 6-5. While the mean thicknesses of every vessel type at every leve l are consistent with the overall means (see Figure 6-5), the vessels in th is 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 peri od represented by the upper three levels of this unit was marked by the manufact ure of a variety of bowl, jar, and injera plate sizes. A similar pattern has been identified at so me 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% cont ained no visible incl usions. All four inclusion types – quartz, mica, grog, and ash – were identified in this pottery sample (Table 6-

PAGE 246

246 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 in clusion 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 sp ace 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 ethnographi c patterns mentioned above). Mica and quartz were present in small numbers. Surface treatments: Within the F7G7 pottery sample, ev ery 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 th e most common form of surface treatment, and was usually found on both the interior and exterior su rface of the sherd. The frequencies of sherds with interior, exterior, or inte rior and exterior slipping corr espond to those found throughout the rest of the site (Table 6-12). Burnishing was also common, although both exte rior and interior burnishing was not. However, roughly equal frequencies of interi or 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 fr om LS-L4, in the southeastern corner of unit F7 (see Figure 4-16).

PAGE 247

247 An examination of surface treatment by vessel ty pe over time shows certain patterns in the ways specific vessels were treated after partia l 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; insera sherds were either slipped on both surfaces, or slipped on the exterior and burnished on the interior; mitad sherds were either sl ipped on both surfaces, or slipped on the interior and burnished on the exte rior. 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 c ontrast to the pattern observed in units A2 and C4, in which diste sherds are more uniformly treated in recen t years, but it is consistent with the diste surface treatment patterns observed in units J3 and J8, as well as with th e 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 (F igure 6-21). The frequencies of sherds with both interior and exterior slipping remain relatively co nstant over time. The practices of interior slipping/exterior burnishing and th e reverse, interior burnishing/ 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 ex terior 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 d ecorated sherds, and 36 distinct decorative types (Table 6-13). By far the most common decoration was the appli qu line, either a single one or several on a

PAGE 248

248 sherd. In most of these the di rection of the line was unidentifiable; in the rest, the line was horizontal in orientation. Since vertical or diagonal appliqu lines have never been identified at this site, it is reasonable to assume that most, if not all, of these “direction unidentified” appliqu lines are horizontally oriented. Also common in this unit wa s the ubiquitous incised stra ight 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. So me other common decoration types included grooved straight lines, incised horizont al and zigzag lines, and app liqu lugs (Figure 6-22). The major pattern in this unit is that ther e is a much smaller range of variation in decoration types on identifiable vess els in this unit than in other units (Figure 6-11). The most common insera (jar) decoration was an appliqu line (N =39), usually horizontal. Six of these appliqu lines had finger impressi ons on them. Very few of the diste (bowl) sherds were decorated. Those that were most commonly had incised horizontal lines. Plates ( mitadoch ) 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 ri m. All of these latter sherds were decorated with incised horizontal lines running around the ex terior and interior rim. An examination of Figure 6-23 reveals some br oad shifts in the decorative types applied over time. Non-decorated sherds fluctuate sli ghtly 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 assembla ge. As in the other units, both incised and

PAGE 249

249 appliqus lines are found at every level. Other d ecorative types, such as fingernail crescents, the incised concentric U, the incised V with lines, and incised criss-cross li nes, are only found in LSL1 and LS-L2 (Figure 6-23). The major 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 decorati ve types. This is the same level, and thus potentially the same time period, at which the major 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 th at occurs after around th is 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 G onder. Overall, however, this increase in decorative types in the upper levels seems to indicate a period of prolifer ation, 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 th e pottery showed no sign of us ewear; the majority of the pottery (64%) had wear on both the ex terior 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, scratche s, and dull soot. The interior surfaces of distoch were characterized by no usew ear, erosion, scratches, pitti ng, rim chips, cracking, carbon deposits that were likely food residue, and glossy soot.

PAGE 250

250 The exterior surfaces of plates ( mitadoch ) were most likely to be eroded or exhibiting dull soot. The interior surfaces were more lik ely 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 eviden ce 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 ch aracteristics of beer storage vessels). No specific shifts in usewear over time we re 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 alterati on 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 observe d in several of the ot her 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 s uggestive of an overall intensification and diversification of pottery manufacture and use in the upper levels of this unit. The vast majority of non-vessel specific pot sherds also exhibited some type of use alteration, on either one or both su rfaces (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) exteri or erosion and no interior us ewear. Again, the high frequency

PAGE 251

251 of erosion, especially on the exterior surfaces of the pottery, forces us to consider postdepositional processes as a possi ble 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 st ratigraphic 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 wa ll 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 un its; they resemble the means of the F7G7 pottery more closely than that of any other unit. This may suggest that F7G7 and G7North are more closely related than either of th em are to any of the other units, perhaps even from one household; however, with out a larger sample, this is mainly just informed conjecture. Inclusions: All four of the main inclusion materials found at the site were present in the G7North assemblage (Table 6-11). However, unlik e the other units, neither quartz nor mica was ever present as the sole inclusion in this samp le; they only appeared in combination with each other, ash or grog. Grog and ash were by far th e most common inclusion types in this sample, appearing in the highest freque ncies both individually and wh en 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.

PAGE 252

252 Surface treatments: Slipping and burnishing were the only t ypes 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 vessel s and their correspond ing 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 burnishi ng and burnishing on both surfaces are present. The one sherd that is bu rnished on both sides is the only outlier in the surface treatment of this assemblage – not onl y 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 c onstruction – 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 insera sherds in the archaeological assemblage, or as it relates to the ethnographic evidence. Mitad sherds were primarily slipped on the interi or 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 mo tives in applying slip to her ve ssels – for utilitarian rather than aesthetic purposes. Decoration Only eight sherds within this assemblage were decorated, in five d ecorative types (Table 613). Most of these sherds exhibited two or more grooved lines on the exteri or body of the vessel. There were also two sherds with appliqu lines one sherd with multiple incised lines, one with incised horizontal lines on the interi or and exterior rim and a zigzag line on the interior rim, and

PAGE 253

253 one example of stamping in a ci rcular pattern (Figure 6-24). Th is is the only instance of this decoration type in the entire site. None of the decorated sherds could be assi gned 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 pot tery 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, scratc hes, and dull soot were also id entified in small frequencies. Interior usewear followed a similar patte rn – erosion was most common, followed by scratches and no wear at all. Cracking and pittin g also occurred in smaller frequencies. The most common wear pattern on individual sherds was erosion on both the in terior and exterior surface; again, postdepositional factors must be taken into account. The one significant usewear pattern in this un it is the relatively high frequency of cracking, which was recorded on over 10% of the total assemb lage. 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 ar ea designated G7-North, it is possible this area constituted a discard site, for br oken pottery and possibly for other materials as well – the reader will recall from Chapter 4 the presence of faunal rema ins in that area, as well as the darker soil, suggesting the presence of organi c materials. G7-North may re present a discard site for the household associated with F7G7.

PAGE 254

254 Unit G7-West Only twelve diagnostic sherds we re recovered from this area, of which four were assigned to specific vessel types: two each mitad (plate) and insera (jar) sherds. Ten of these were rim sherds; the other two were insera neck fragments. Eight of the sherds were slipped on both the interior and exterior surfaces. The two mitad rims were burnished on th e exterior and slipped on the interior. One of the insera sherds was sli pped 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 ei ght sherds, and in equal frequencies on the exterior and interior surfaces. Scratching was also common, and ag ain appeared indiscriminately on both the interior and exterior surfaces. Du ll soot was found on the ex terior surfaces of two sherds, one of which belonged to a mitad Pitting was found on the interior of one insera sherd. The patterns of surface treatment and use al teration 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 asso ciated 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 fi eld season were assigne d specific vessel types; 26.3% of the diagnostic po ttery assemblage. Three of the four main vessel types were present in each of the major units; jebena sherds were very rare, and only found in units A2 and

PAGE 255

255 J3 (Table 6-4). Spindle whorls were f ound only in units A2, J3, and possibly F7G7.36 A2 was the only unit to contain an identifiable sherd from a butter-mak ing 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) mitad (plate) sherds were the most fr equent, making up between 43.8% and 66% of the identifiable assemblage. Jebena sherds, as mentioned, were the least frequent of the major vessel types, and insera and diste sherds made up 18-31% and 13-31% of the identifiable sherds, respectively. Units F7G7 and G7-North showed slightly diffe rent 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 comm on types in these two units, making up 39.0% and 29.4% of the assemblages, respectively. Mitad sherds were relati vely infrequent in these two units, compared to the other units. Vessel Forms In looking at patterns in the pottery assemblages of the se ven major units, the types of attributes examined were divided into four ma jor 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 attribut es that provide insight about the manufacturing techniques of the vessel. Thus in this section, I address the broa d 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, r im shape, rim diameter, inclusions, and surface treatment. Decoration is also anot her feature in the formation of a vessel, but it is discussed in its own section below. 36 Two sherds in units F7G7 were cla ssified as either spindle whorls or diste lids; they are too small to determine definitively.

PAGE 256

256 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 co nstant 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 a ddition, the actual thicknesses of dist e walls were fairly homogenous across units, ranging from approximately 3 to 15 mm. Agai n, the outlier here was F7G7, and to a lesser extent, G7-Nort h. These two units yielded several diste sherds that significantly thicker than those found in other units. Overal l, however, the wall thicknesses of distoch are very similar across the units (Figure 6-24). Insera sherds have been shown to vary somewh at in terms of wall thickness within each unit. Comparing units, we can see that the range of variation for insera sherds seems to conform to certain rules. Within each unit, insera sherds have a range of approximately 42.54.5 mm. That is to say, while the sherds thicknesses vary, they all stay w ithin a certain range, and that range is remarkably similar across units. The ex ception to this pattern was unit A2, which had an overall insera thickness range of only 8.12.0 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 si milar 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 le ss so than the other vessel types. The insera sherds

PAGE 257

257 from unit A2 tended to be significantly thinner, and unit C4 had several insera sherds that were much thicker than those found in th e other units (Figure 6-24). Mitad sherds tended to show the least amount of variation in thickness within each unit – the range of thickness within ea ch unit was approximately 12.91.2 mm. The exceptions to this pattern were units F7G7, whose mitad sherds had a range of 18 mm and G7-North, with a range of 2 mm. In general, the sizes of mitadoch walls were very similar across units, ranging from 6.6 mm to 25.6 mm, and means ranging from approximate ly 14 to 16 mm. F7G7 tended to have the thickest mitad 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 term s of wall thickness as it relates to vessel size. Even the variation within each uni t is comparable across units. Rim diameter A total of 1,765 rim sherds were recovered fr om the site, 338 of which were large enough to determine the vessel mouth diam eter (Table 6-3). As discusse d 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 si zes, 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 diam eters; 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

PAGE 258

258 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 un its were engaged in making distoch of various sizes, those from units C4 and J3 specialized in smaller distoch than in the other units. Si milarly, 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 diffe rent pattern (Figure 6-25). The mean insera rim diameter had a much smaller standa rd 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 insera sizes both within and across units. Because mitadoch tend to be so large, very few mitad rims were recovered that were large enough to determine the vessel diameter. Thus the small sample size precludes us from forming strong conclusions about mitad size across units. Having said th at, Figure 6-25 does indicate that the mitad sherds recovered from unit C4 were much more diverse in size than in unit J3, which contained a comparable number of measurable mitad sherds. The large range in mean diameters from those and the other units, ev en 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.

PAGE 259

259 Rim shape Rim shapes did not appear to vary significan tly 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). Th is latter type was said to be shaped to fit a lid in the notch created by the ridge. F7G7 c ontained 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 simila r 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 comm only curved or pointed concave in all units. Mitad 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 w ithin individual units. Overall, rim type patterns fu rther underscore the cross-unit ho mogeneity 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 asse mblages of each unit, either alone, or in some combination. However, the frequencies of each t ype, particularly ash, varied significantly from unit to unit. Grog was by far the most common in clusion type; it was present in 51.8-79.6% of the pottery from each unit. The exception to th is pattern was G7-West, in which grog was only present as an inclusion in 31.2%.

PAGE 260

260 The frequency of ash as an inclusion varied wi dely 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 mu ch more common, present in 47.3-59.1% of the assemblages. J3 lay in the middle; as h was present in 37.8% of the assemblage. This variation provides some si gnificant 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 ha ve made their pottery di rectly on the floor, or used a woven plate, as some of the potters I interviewed did (see Fi gures 5-2 and 5-3). Units F7G7 and G7-North were also very simila r 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 G7West 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 majority 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 specifi c 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 smoothi ng. In J3 only 33.3% of the insera sherds were slipped on both

PAGE 261

261 surfaces. The rest of the insera sherds in this unit ha d exterior slipping and interior burnishing or smoothing. Diste (bowl) sherds were also overwhelmingl y 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 exte rior slipping was interior sli pping and exterior smoothing or burnishing. Mitad (plate) sherds were a little more varied in their su rface 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 a nd exterior slipping; 2) interior slipping and exterior burnishing; or 3) interior slipping and exte rior smoothing. The third pattern was only found in units A2 and C4. In every unit the most common pattern was interior slipping and exte rior burnishing, but it ranged from making up 36% of the mitad sherds in C4 to 67% in J3. Interior and exterior slipping ranged from making up 19% of the mitad sherds in A2 to 39% of them in F7G7. Only four jebena sherds were found, two each in units A2 a nd J3. In A2 they were characterized by exterior slipping and interior bu rnishing or smoothing; in J3 th ey were both burnished on the interior and smoothed on the exterior. Discussion These patterns in vessel form, decoration and us e across units are very useful in attempting to understand the relationships between the house holds, 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, ri m shape and rim diameter, and to an extent, surface treatment are consistent with a group of related women who have learned the techniques

PAGE 262

262 of pottery manufacture from each other. The differences in temper type, and the minor variations in surface treatment may be expression s of individual preference, or they may be indicative of affinal relations that brought potters into these house holds – potters that came from other families or other regions, and who learned different techniques. This juxtaposition of continuity and variation provide s some valuable insight into patterns of cultural transmission among the Beta Israel potters of th is 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 po ttery was always made a certain way – for example, the thicknesses of the vessel wa lls 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 rang e of choices available to the potter. These may be the areas in which the potter chose to expres s herself and allow her pottery to reflect her individual choices. The one major outlier in vessel formation pattern s 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 seem s clear that the potters associ ated with this unit practiced slightly different manufacturing t echniques than those in the othe r units; the other units are all more similar to each other than they are to un it 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 pr ovide some valuable insights a bout how pottery manufacturing techniques varied. Decorative types can be broken down into th ree frequency categories: those that appear on more than 80 sh erds sitewide, those that appe ar on 10-79 sherds sitewide, and

PAGE 263

263 those that appear on less than te n sherds sitewide. The first ca tegory contains four decorative types: 1) the single appliqu line (N=200), 2) multiple incised lines (N=119), 3) multiple appliqu lines (N=98), and 4) multiple grooved li nes (N=87). These four types appeared in nearly equal frequencies in units A2, C4, J3, a nd 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 appliqu line (the frequencies of this type ranged from 6.6% to 9.8% across units), and the multiple appliqu 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 decora tive types (frequencies of 1079 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 appliqu lug (N=14), 6) the multiple incised horizontal lines on the interi or and exterior rim (N=11), and 7) the single incised horizontal line (N=10). These also appear ed in nearly equal frequencies across units: the variation in frequencies was never mo re than 1.7 percentage points. The rest of the decorative types appeared on less than ten sherds sitewide, and 38% of these types (N=16) were recove red only from unit F7G7. A2 was the only unit to contain an incised wavy line on an appliqu line, and a sherd with incised and v-overlap lines (Figure 6-12). Unit C4 was the only unit to have incised verti cal and wavy lines (Figur e 6-15). Unit G7-North was the only unit to contain a stamped sherd (Figur e 6-26). Unit J3 contained an appliqu circle, two sherds with finger pinching, an d a sherd with incised horizontal lines on both the interior and 37 Units G7-North and G7-West are exclud ed from the frequency discussion: the very low sample size of these units was found to skew the results.

PAGE 264

264 exterior rim and v-overlap lines (Figure 6-17); these decorations were not found in any other units. Unit J8 did not yield any decora tions that were unique to this unit. It has become common archaeol ogical practice to shed the ou tliers – to overlook those few sherds that are unique in favor of those sherds that conform to br oader patterns. However, these few are the sherds which distingu ish the units – and the potters associated with them – from one another. Clearly placing an appliqu line aroun d 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 a nd shared at this site, does not provide any insight about individual expres sion or creativity. For that we must address the outliers. The distribution of decorations reveals that there were a hand ful of decorative techniques that were common throughout the site, and many mo re 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 perspec tive is vessel function. Examining the usewear patterns on the various sher ds and comparing them from unit to unit will provide insight into how vessels were used in each area. Insera : Again, the main pattern here is the remarkab le consistency of use alteration types across units. In every unit, insera (jar) sherds were most comm only characterized by no exterior usewear. When usewear was present on the exterior surface, it was almost exclusively in the

PAGE 265

265 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 iden tifiable vessels in this unit (compared to 5770% 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 (7.430.0%). F7G7 was also the only unit to contain insera 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 ma de up 5-14% of the assemblage for each unit. The exception here was unit J3, in which 40% of the insera sherds had no interior usewear. When interior usewear was present, all the insera sherds tended to show erosi on, pitting, scratches, or some combination of the three. It appears that jars 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 si milar 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: Mitad (plate) sherds, like the ot her two vessel types, showed remarkable homogeneity in terms of use alteration across units. Exterior su rfaces 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 th at the various vessels were being used for the same purpos es sitewide. This consistency is of course more expected in usewear than in vessel forming techniques as vessels have a limite d number of functions.

PAGE 266

266 Discussion As the above discussion illustrates, there are some significant variations in the pottery assemblages of the five major units; however, no one unit stands out as significantly different from the rest, and the pottery from the individual units overall is more sim ilar to each other than it is different. The minor variations in attri butes like surface treatment, inclusion materials, decoration, and usewear are consiste nt with the levels of variati on we would expect of individual potters within a larger community. Potters are not automatons – it woul d be startling to see identical pottery throughout the s ite. However, this is clearly a group of people who shared the same basic methods to make, deco rate, 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 homogeneit y in pottery manufactur e 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 thes e women were related; t hus 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 ar e the general characteristics of Abwara Giorgis pottery, and that in fact the households represen ted by these units were not associated at any scale smaller than village-level. A more exte nsive excavation and analysis of the site is necessary to shed more light on this issue.

PAGE 267

267 Change Over Time Vessel Types Based on the ethnographic and arch aeological record, there are four main vessel types in Abwara Giorgis. Three of thes e four vessel types appeared th roughout the deposits of every unit (only two jebena sherds were recovered), in dicating that the types of vessels made and/or used at Abwara Giorgis have not changed significantly over time. It s eems 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 shap e 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 ha ve 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, sugge sting that these levels in J3 are contemporary to the upper levels of the other unit s. In addition, the shift in vessel types present in unit J3 is more multi-directional than in the other units, with an increase in insera sherds and a concurrent decrease in mitad sherds. This overall increase in pottery frequency, coupled with the

PAGE 268

268 appearance of new vessel types in unit A2, is indicative of a peri od of more intensified pottery manufacture, and possibly a diversif ication of the pottery types made. Vessel Form Wall thickness and surface treatment The analysis of vessel manufacturing pattern s, including vessel wa ll thickness, vessel mouth diameter, inclusion material s, and surface treatment, indi cate 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 – concur rent 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 ma de, particularly vessel wall thickness and surface treatment. While some form of diversity was ev ident 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 wide r 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-l3 was the insera Vessel wall thicknesses in unit J3, like unit A2, tended to be more constant over time. Diversification 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. Insera sherds always displayed a variety of surface treat ments, but there is a shift in the specific

PAGE 269

269 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, th is 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 major 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 technique s – which mainly varied in terms of whether ash was prevalent or not – did not change signif icantly. 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 F7 G7, in which ash was a frequent inclusion, it made up 40-69% of the assemblage at every stratigra phic level. In unit J3, which wa s characterized by moderate ash frequencies throughout, ash was presen t in 23-43% of the assemblage at every level. It seems that although the use of ash as an inclusion varied from residen tial unit to reside ntial unit, the potters who occupied the respective units did not va ry 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 daugh ters (and other female relatives) the potterymanufacture techniques, and it is apparent that the daughters conti nued in the same traditions as their mothers, at least until they left their resp ective 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.

PAGE 270

270 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 f ound no significant shift in use alteration types in the pottery assemblage acr oss stratigraphic levels. The only area in which a shift was seen was in the upper two levels of un it A2, in which the presen ce of interior pitting on insera (jar) sherds became more frequent. It se ems likely that the occupants of this area adopted the practice of making and/or storing beer or other fermente d products in their jars. 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 dive rsification in the areas of wall thickness and surface treatment. These levels are characterized by higher freque ncies of usewear as well as a wider range of usewear types, s uggesting a) pottery was used more intensively during that period and b) pottery use may have become more genera lized, with each vessel type serving a number of functions. Decoration The pottery recovered during the course of this excavation s howed a significant level of homogeneity in terms of the way it was decorate d, both in time and space. There seem to be certain decorative types that are constant – they are used both thr oughout the community, and throughout the history of the site. These include d the ubiquitous single appliqu line, multiple appliqu lines, multiple incised lines, and to a sl ightly lesser extent, mu ltiple grooved lines. The fact that several of these d ecorative types were applied to the pottery of the women I interviewed, most of w hom were not originally from Abwara Giorgis, suggests that these are widely used decorations that extend beyond the bor ders of Abwara Giorgis, and may in fact

PAGE 271

271 extend beyond the Beta Israel community. Certainl y the single appliqu li ne around the throat of jebenoch (coffee pots) and large inseroch (water jars) is common in much of the pottery throughout Ethiopia today. Beneath this layer of continui ty is a second, smaller scale le vel 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 decorativ e 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 sma ller frequencies – usually limited to less than five sherds – it is these decorations th at are the most signi ficant for this study. In terms of time, the major types – the appliq u and incised lines – occurred in relatively constant frequencies over time. These are clea rly widespread and longstanding 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 uni t. 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 on ly 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 leve l 1 of J8 – was more common. Other decorative types, while not disappearing entirely, became mu ch less common in the upper levels. Multiple appliqu lines and multiple incised lines are tw o examples of these – their frequencies were significantly reduced in the upper levels of unit J 3. 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.

PAGE 272

272 More common than the disappearance of cer tain decorative types over time was the appearance of new types in the upper levels. Th e incised horizontal and zigzag lines motif was only found in the upper levels, excep t in unit J3, where it was recove red from levels l, 3, and 4. Similarly, the incised horizontal and vertical lines motif wa s only found above LS-L2. In general, it appears that multi-component decorati ons – 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 be came more frequent over time in other units. Conversely, several decorations that are found mainly in the upper le vels of the other main units are found only in the lower levels of J3. For ex ample, the motifs of horizontal incised lines on the interior and exterior rim w ith either a zigzag line or a v-overlap line (see Figures 6-15, 6-20, and 6-23) appear primarily in th e upper two levels of units C4, F7G7, and J8 (they do not appear at all in A2). They are only present in the lowe r 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 th is possibility. Individual decorative ty pes aside, the overwhelming pattern in decoration is an explosion of decorative types – in the upper levels of ever y unit and the lower levels of unit J3. This increase in decorative diversity occurs conc urrently with all the pottery increases and diversification described above: th e overall increase in pottery, the increase in sherd thickness ranges, in surface treatment options, and in several units, in usewear ty pes. In nearly all the units there is an increase both in the frequency of und ecorated sherds, and in the number of decorative types (see Figures 6-12b, 6-15b, 618b, and 6-23b) present in certa in levels. Further, these

PAGE 273

273 particular levels are often char acterized 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 an alyzed extensively; it was counted and weighed, and the data are presented in Table 6-18. However, fre quency distributions were examined to look for parallels between increased slag frequencies – indicating increased iron smelting – and increased pottery frequencies. Concurrent increases in sl ag and pottery might suggest an overall increase and intensification in econo mic activity, not just limited to one sphere of production. Unit F7G7 was the only excavated unit to contai n 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 distri bution patterns found in th is unit; the vast majo rity 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 se verely limit the conclusi ons 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 majority 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 larg er than those recovered from th e other levels. In fact, the average weight of these frag ments (13.3g) was significantly hi gher 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 pr evalent in the upper levels of the unit, most of

PAGE 274

274 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 de scribed above certainly could represent such a shift; the distribution in unit J3 probably provides the st rongest evidence for that argument, since slag was present at almost every level. This suggests that the di scard of slag, at least, occurred throughout the history of this unit, but was most common during the period asso ciated 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 th e previous occupants di d 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 conc lusions from being drawn about an increase in the production of iron that occu rred concurrently with the in crease in production, use, and discard of pottery. Additional excavation is required in orde r 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 duri ng 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 opti ons, decorative types, and use alteration types, it appears that the upper two to three levels of every unit were characte rized by intensified and diversified pottery manufacture, use, and discard. The exceptions here are units J8, which, due

PAGE 275

275 to its recent occupation, di d not display this shift, and J3, in which the shift occurred in the lower levels, suggesting a later occupa tion 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 incr eased industrial productiv ity – a shift that was a likely response to some greater social, economic, or political shif t in Gondarine community – rather than smallscale, individual changes in practi ce. 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 contra sting 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 af ter the increased status they ha d enjoyed during the Gonder Era. This argument states that during the Gonder Er a the Beta Israel pr acticed higher-status occupations than their traditional potting, w eaving, 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 occupa tions – smithing, weaving, and pottery. This argument has been set against a backdr op of historical records that argue the 18th and 19th century Gonder Beta Israel we re in fact “well off and prosperous” (Flad 1869). They are frequently described by 18th-and 19th-century travelers as “h ouse-builders” (Rppell 1838), “masons” (Bruce 1790), and “architects” (Gobat 1851). In addition, other historians (Crummey 2000, Pankhurst 1969) argue that th e 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

PAGE 276

276 the reversion to pre-Gondarine occupations eith er 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 so rt of shift we might expect to see in a community-wide adoption (or re-ad option, as the case may be) of pottery as one of the main industries of Abwara Giorgis. In addition, the si tewide 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 Er a, in which social, political, and economic centralization collapsed in to 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 th at 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 po ttery sample is small and na rrowly defined. Although large quantities of pottery were recovered from the s ite, the vast majority of these were undecorated, and often, as pointed out throughout this chapter, I was dealin g with decorative types that appeared on five potsherds or less. The small sample size tempers definitive conclu sions about why the site saw such a sudden increase in pottery in the upper levels. The conc lusions I have presented fit well into the model of increased economic activity asso ciated with the rise of the Era of the Princes, the most compelling of alternatives. Anot her explanation may be that th is period was associated with

PAGE 277

277 increased occupation of the site, for increased popul ation density may have caused an increase in the presence of basic household items such as pottery.38 38 However, histories of the Gonder Beta Israel do not asso ciate 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 ri se of the Gonder Era and asso ciated population increase. The available radiocarbon dates from the site make this le ss likely than the scenario I ha ve presented, but the date ranges do not rule this possibility out.

PAGE 278

278 Table 6-1 Body sherd frequency by level Stratigraphic Level FrequencyPercent *Note: these frequencies do not include Unit A2 sherds recovered from wall cleanings or LS-L1 60045.7% whose provenience is otherwise unknown LS-L2 38029.0% LS-L3 25119.1% LS-L4 00.0% LS-L5 110.8% LS-L6 151.1% LS-L7 55 4.2% Total A2 pottery 1312100.0% Unit C4 LS-L1 70241.8% LS-L2 76745.7% LS-L2a 482.9% LS-L3 633.8% LS-L3a 684.1% LS-L4 221.3% LS-L5 8 0.5% Total C4 pottery 1678100.0% Unit J3 LS-L1 2209.8% LS-L2 2169.6% LS-L3 79735.3% LS-L4 98743.8% LS-L5 36 1.6% Total J3 pottery 2256100.0% Unit J8 LS-L1 103780.2% LS-L2 584.5% LS-L3 463.6% LS-L4 13210.2% LS-L4a 20 1.5% Total J8 pottery 1293100.0% Unit F7G7 LS-L1 319263.1% LS-L2 93918.6%

PAGE 279

279 Table 6-1 Continued Stratigraphic Level FrequencyPercent Unit F7G7 continued LS-L3 2605.1% LS-L4 1723.4% LS-L4a 1142.3% LS-L5 1883.7% LS-L6 190 3.8% Total F7G7 pottery 5055100.0%

PAGE 280

280 Table 6-2 Summary of sherd types, AG 2004 Sherd Type FrequencyPercent Unit A2 Rims 18860.3% Decorated body 4514.4% Handles 227.1% Bases 103.2% Necks 92.9% Feet 10.3% Shoulders 10.3% Rim and base sherds 268.3% Rim and handle sherds 31.0% Rim and neck sherds 20.6% Base and handle sherds 10.3% Spindle whorls 10.3% Diste lids 10.3% Unidentified 2 0.6% Total A2 pottery sherds 312100.0% Unit C4 Rims 24451.7% Decorated body 7916.7% Handles 449.3% Bases 255.3% Necks 204.2% Shoulders 10.2% Rim and base sherds 469.7% Rim and handle sherds 40.8% Rim and neck sherds 30.6% Rim and shoulder sherds 10.2% Rim, base and neck sherds 10.2% Unidentified 4 0.8% Total C4 pottery sherds 472100.0% Unit J3 Rims 32264.3% Decorated body 7815.6% Handles 316.2% Bases 224.4%

PAGE 281

281 Table 6-2 continued Sherd Type FrequencyPercent Unit J3 con't Necks 102.0% Shoulders 51.0% Feet 10.2% Rim and base sherds 244.8% Rim and handle sherds 10.2% Rim and shoulder sherds 10.2% Rim, neck and shoulder sherds 10.2% Neck and shoulder sherds 20.4% Spindle whorls 3 0.6% Total J3 pottery sherds 501100.0% Unit J8 Rims 12162.4% Decorated body 3819.6% Handles 136.7% Bases 136.7% Necks 63.1% Feet 10.5% Rim and base sherds 10.5% Neck and shoulder sherds 1 0.5% Total J8 pottery sherds 194100.0% Unit F7G7 Rims 68355.2% Decorated body 26821.6% Handles 907.3% Bases 574.6% Necks 725.8% Shoulders 10.1% Feet 80.6% Rim and base sherds 362.9% Rim and neck sherds 90.7% Rim and handle sherds 30.2% Base and handle sherds 20.2% Neck and shoulder sherds 10.1% Base and foot sherds 10.1%

PAGE 282

282 Table 6-2 continued Sherd Type FrequencyPercent Unit F7G7 con't Rim, base and foot sherds 20.2% Unidentifiable 5 0.4% Total F7G7 pottery sherds 1238100.0% Unit G7-North Rims 3257.1% Decorated body 610.7% Handles 11.8% Bases 00.0% Necks 47.1% Feet 00.0% Rim and base sherds 1 1.8% Total G7-North pottery sherds 4478.6% Unit G7-West Rims 1083.3% Necks 2 16.7% Total G7-West pottery sherds 12100.0%

PAGE 283

283 Table 6-3 Descriptive statistics for rim diameter by vessel type Unit A2 count meanmediansdrangeminimum maximum diste LS-L1 3 41.66667508.3333332525 50 LS-L2 2 33334.242641630 36 LS-L3 1 3232n/a032 32 LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L6 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L7 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a insera LS-L1 2 13131.414214212 14 LS-L2 7 9.71428693.09377386 14 LS-L3 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L6 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L7 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a mitad LS-L1 1 3030n/a030 30 LS-L2 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L3 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L6 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L7 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a jebena LS-L1 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L2 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L3 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L6 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L7 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a unidentified vessel type LS-L1 2 19.519.513.435031910 29 LS-L2 2 36360036 36 LS-L3 4 13.5129.712535224 26 LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L6 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L7 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a

PAGE 284

284 Table 6-3 continued Unit C4 count meanmediansdrangemin max diste LS-L1 2 252515.556352214 36 LS-L2 7 24.57143249.501883010 40 LS-L3 4 19196.2182531412 26 LS-L3a 2 21217.0710681016 26 LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a insera LS-L1 4 10101.63299348 12 LS-L2 7 9.428571103.408672104 14 LS-L3 1 1414n/a014 14 LS-L3a 1 1010n/a010 10 LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a mitad LS-L1 3 29.333333021.00794428 50 LS-L2 2 50500050 50 LS-L3 2 414112.727921832 50 LS-L3a 2 404014.142142030 50 LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a jebena LS-L1 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L2 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L3 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L3a 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a unidentified vessel type LS-L1 8 18.251217.05244464 50 LS-L2 7 18.571431411.75949328 40 LS-L3 3 20.66667186.4291011216 28 LS-L3a 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L4 2 303025.455843612 48 LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a Unit J3 count meanmediansdrangemin max diste LS-L1 4 20195.8878411414 28 LS-L2 3 16164812 20 LS-L3 7 15.28571126.848705179 26 LS-L4 5 23.61814.587673610 46

PAGE 285

285 Table 6-3 continued LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a insera LS-L1 3 15.33333163.05505612 18 LS-L2 3 21.33333246.4291011214 26 LS-L3 5 31.23012.853023416 50 LS-L4 7 25.14286287.5592892210 32 LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a mitad LS-L1 3 42.66667448.0829041634 50 LS-L2 1 1212n/a012 12 LS-L3 3 38403.464102634 40 LS-L4 4 39.5409.5742712228 50 LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a jebena LS-L1 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L2 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L3 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a unidentified vessel type LS-L1 4 19.51316.52271368 44 LS-L2 1 2424n/a024 24 LS-L3 3 12.66667108.326664166 22 LS-L4 4 12.597.72442168 24 LS-L5 1 3030n/a030 30 Unit J8 count meanmediansdrangemin max diste LS-L1 2 27271.414214226 28 LS-L2 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a insera LS-L1 1 1414n/a014 14 LS-L2 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a mitad LS-L1 2 50500050 50 LS-L2 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a jebena LS-L1 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L2 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a

PAGE 286

286 Table 6-3 continued unidentified vessel type LS-L1 4 8.510364 10 LS-L2 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L3 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L4a 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a Unit F7G7 count meanmediansdrangemin max diste LS-L1 44 32.909093012.68916428 50 LS-L2 25 32.163014.37498428 50 LS-L3 3 3226142622 48 LS-L4 4 24.52610.878112610 36 LS-L4a 1 5050n/a050 50 LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L6 3 343012.492424 48 insera LS-L1 26 12.03846122.374544108 18 LS-L2 18 12.05556123.22622128 20 LS-L3 1 1212n/a012 12 LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L4a 2 11114.24264168 14 LS-L5 1 1212n/a012 12 LS-L6 1 1212n/a012 12 mitad LS-L1 4 49.5501248 50 LS-L2 6 47.66667505.7154761436 50 LS-L3 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L4a 1 5050n/a050 50 LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L6 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a unidentified vessel type LS-L1 22 12.72727109.592566446 50 LS-L2 20 14.51011.64158446 50 LS-L3 2 10105.65685486 14 LS-L4 2 10102.82842748 12 LS-L4a 1 1010n/a010 10 LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L6 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a

PAGE 287

287 Table 6-3 continued Unit G7-North count meanmediansdrangemin max diste LS-L1 6 34.333333917.130873812 50 insera LS-L1 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a mitad LS-L1 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a jebena LS-L1 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a unidentified vessel type LS-L1 1 44n/a04 4 sitewide patterns count meanmediansdrangemin max diste 141 29.609932812.92383428 50 insera 84 12.08333123.574368244 28 mitad 35 42.171435011.18162428 50 jebena 0 n/an/an/an/an/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

PAGE 288

288 Table 6-4 Rim statistics in the AG 2004 pottery asse mblage. A) Rim diameter frequencies. B) rim thickness frequencies Diameter FrequencyPercent Unit A2 too small to determine 19287.7% 0.0-5.0 cm 10.5% 5.1-10.0 cm 73.2% 10.1-15.0 cm 62.7% 15.1-20.0 cm 10.5% 20.1-25.0 cm 10.5% 25.1-30.0 cm 52.3% 30.1-35.0 cm 10.5% 35.1-40.0 cm 31.4% over 40.0 cm 2 0.9% Total A2 rims 219100.0% Unit C4 too small to determine 24280.7% 0.0-5.0 cm 20.7% 5.1-10.0 cm 155.0% 10.1-15.0 cm 113.7% 15.1-20.0 cm 72.3% 20.1-25.0 cm 31.0% 25.1-30.0 cm 82.7% 30.1-35.0 cm 10.3% 35.1-40.0 cm 41.3% over 40.0 cm 7 2.3% Total C4 rims 300100.0% Unit J3 too small to determine 28782.5% 0.0-5.0 cm 20.6% 5.1-10.0 cm 82.3% 10.1-15.0 cm 113.2% 15.1-20.0 cm 82.3% 20.1-25.0 cm 82.3% 25.1-30.0 cm 102.9% 30.1-35.0 cm 30.9% 35.1-40.0 cm 41.1%

PAGE 289

289 Table 6-4A continued Diameter FrequencyPercent Unit J3 continued over 40.0 cm 7 2.0% Total J3 rims 348100.0% Unit J8 too small to determine 11392.6% 0.0-5.0 cm 00.0% 5.1-10.0 cm 32.5% 10.1-15.0 cm 10.8% 15.1-20.0 cm 00.0% 20.1-25.0 cm 00.0% 25.1-30.0 cm 21.6% 30.1-35.0 cm 00.0% 35.1-40.0 cm 00.0% over 40.0 cm 3 2.5% Total J8 rims 122100.0% Unit F7G7 too small to determine 55275.0% 0.0-5.0 cm 00.0% 5.1-10.0 cm 456.1% 10.1-15.0 cm 354.8% 15.1-20.0 cm 192.6% 20.1-25.0 cm 141.9% 25.1-30.0 cm 202.7% 30.1-35.0 cm 10.1% 35.1-40.0 cm 121.6% over 40.0 cm 38 5.2% Total F7G7 rims 736100.0% Unit G7-North too small to determine 2575.8% 0.0-5.0 cm 13.0% 5.1-10.0 cm 13.0% 10.1-15.0 cm 13.0% 15.1-20.0 cm 13.0%

PAGE 290

290 Table 6-4A continued Diameter FrequencyPercent Unit G7-North continued 20.1-25.0 cm 00.0% 25.1-30.0 cm 00.0% 30.1-35.0 cm 13.0% 35.1-40.0 cm 00.0% over 40.0 cm 3 9.1% Total G7-North rims 33100.0% Unit G7-West too small to determine 10 100.0% Total G7-West rims 10100.0%

PAGE 291

291 Table 6-4B Thickness FrequencyPercent Unit A2 0.0-5.0 mm 3214.6% 5.1-10.0 mm 5926.9% 10.1-15.0 mm 4219.2% 15.1-20.0 mm 5424.7% over 20.0 mm 32 14.6% Total A2 rims 219100.0% Unit C4 0.0-5.0 mm 4615.3% 5.1-10.0 mm 5819.3% 10.1-15.0 mm 6421.3% 15.1-20.0 mm 9632.0% over 20.0 mm 36 12.0% Total C4 rims 300100.0% Unit J3 0.0-5.0 mm 6318.1% 5.1-10.0 mm 7120.4% 10.1-15.0 mm 10831.0% 15.1-20.0 mm 7220.7% over 20.0 mm 34 9.8% Total J3 rims 348100.0% Unit J8 0.0-5.0 mm 1713.9% 5.1-10.0 mm 2419.7% 10.1-15.0 mm 3528.7% 15.1-20.0 mm 3629.5% over 20.0 mm 10 8.2% Total J8 rims 122100.0% Unit F7G7 0.0-5.0 mm 10614.5% 5.1-10.0 mm 16822.9% 10.1-15.0 mm 15320.9%

PAGE 292

292 Table 6-4B continued Thickness FrequencyPercent Unit F7G7 continued 15.1-20.0 mm 23632.2% over 20.0 mm 73 10.0% Total F7G7 rims 736100.4% Unit G7-North 0.0-5.0 mm 39.1% 5.1-10.0 mm 1236.4% 10.1-15.0 mm 618.2% 15.1-20.0 mm 927.3% over 20.0 mm 3 9.1% Total G7-North rims 33100.0% Unit G7-West 0.0-5.0 mm 110.0% 5.1-10.0 mm 440.0% 10.1-15.0 mm 330.0% 15.1-20.0 mm 220.0% over 20.0 mm 0 0.0% Total G7-West rims 10100.0%

PAGE 293

293 Table 6-5 Descriptive statistics fo r vessel wall thickness by vessel type Unit A2 count meanmediansdrangemin max diste LS-L1 4 11.27511.23.4798236.97.9 14.8 LS-L2 7 10.285719.13.82771810.67 17.6 LS-L3 5 12.4213.52.3263715.69.3 14.9 LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L6 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L7 1 13.413.4n/a013.4 13.4 insera LS-L1 6 10.759.953.99036310.15.5 15.6 LS-L2 9 9.2444449.82.3870028.34.2 12.5 LS-L3 3 10.712.33.30454266.9 12.9 LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L6 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L7 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a mitad LS-L1 19 17.8263219.32.98809510.311.4 21.7 LS-L2 8 15.112514.553.0063928.910 18.9 LS-L3 7 16.818.54.00208311.310.3 21.6 LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L6 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L7 1 18.318.3n/a018.3 18.3 jebena LS-L1 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L2 1 4.94.9n/a04.9 4.9 LS-L3 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L6 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L7 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a unidentified vessel type LS-L1 80 13.842511.757.54478233.13.1 36.2 LS-L2 69 11.4884110.35.48137326.21.6 27.8 LS-L3 45 10.828898.95.78330826.53.2 29.7 LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L5 5 11.8412.33.5387859.86.8 16.6 LS-L6 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L7 3 9.8333339.45.96182311.94.1 16

PAGE 294

294 Table 6-5 continued Unit C4 count meanmediansdrangemin max diste LS-L1 2 10.7510.753.1819814.58.5 13 LS-L2 10 9.249.052.89067510.63.5 14.1 LS-L3 5 9.8810.21.0425932.58.3 10.8 LS-L3a 2 8.48.41.9798992.87 9.8 LS-L4 1 7.77.7n/a07.7 7.7 LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a insera LS-L1 6 8.0833337.452.0449124.96.1 11 LS-L2 12 17.483339.2517.0475244.24.9 49.1 LS-L3 9 13.533338.812.8028339.87.5 47.3 LS-L3a 3 8.1333338.52.8676355.75.1 10.8 LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a mitad LS-L1 11 14.21818144.6406514.37.6 21.9 LS-L2 23 15.22609152.26017210.111.8 21.9 LS-L3 8 14.7515.052.905168910 19 LS-L3a 7 14.7285714.82.8819648.710.3 19 LS-L4 8 15.67516.151.6951615.512.1 17.6 LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a jebena LS-L1 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L2 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L3 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L3a 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a unidentified vessel type LS-L1 89 12.661812.55.94154324.73.5 28.2 LS-L2 170 13.9529412.98.20957944.93.5 48.4 LS-L3 32 11.28.87.98409739.33.8 43.1 LS-L3a 33 11.257588.77.640639.54.2 43.7 LS-L4 18 11.0777887.0882329.24.1 33.3 LS-L5 1 10.810.8n/a010.8 10.8 Unit J3 count meanmediansdrangemin max diste LS-L1 12 7.9666676.23.3885739.75 14.7 LS-L2 4 6.1755.950.7889871.85.5 7.3 LS-L3 18 9.0611118.853.60345211.33.1 14.4 LS-L4 8 11.4875133.61640611.73.4 15.1 LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a insera LS-L1 7 15.957141411.4674734.95.8 40.7

PAGE 295

295 Table 6-5 continued LS-L2 3 6.8666676.80.115470.26.8 7 LS-L3 6 12.6666710.655.50478614.76.3 21 LS-L4 11 10.5818210.34.02661614.32.7 17 LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a mitad LS-L1 4 1412.73.4813797.611.5 19.1 LS-L2 1 16.516.5n/a 016.5 16.5 LS-L3 10 13.9614.43.696304117.4 18.4 LS-L4 28 13.4928613.652.49413111.16.6 17.7 LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a jebena LS-L1 1 7.37.3n/a07.3 7.3 LS-L2 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L3 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a unidentified vessel type LS-L1 73 11.5328811.24.78034321.94.5 26.4 LS-L2 22 14.61512.858.08496229.13.5 32.6 LS-L3 106 11.6509411.65.15105619.23 22.2 LS-L4 175 11.8542911.46.47598338.33.1 41.4 LS-L5 5 14.4815.54.0350968.910.3 19.2 Unit J8 count meanmediansdrangemin max diste LS-L1 4 10.7511.151.5154763.58.6 12.1 LS-L2 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L4 1 9.39.3n/a09.3 9.3 insera LS-L1 8 10.39.54.02563210.56 16.5 LS-L2 1 1616n/a016 16 LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a mitad LS-L1 9 14.8222215.51.9588126.511.7 18.2 LS-L2 1 17.217.2n/a017.2 17.2 LS-L4 3 19.4666718.83.8436097.616 23.6 jebena LS-L1 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L2 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a unidentified vessel type LS-L1 139 12.5611512.16.71552939.23.2 42.4 LS-L2 2 9.559.550.6363960.99.1 10 LS-L3 5 15.3215.22.1347135.113.3 18.4 LS-L4 15 12.5212.32.91748410.67.3 17.9 LS-L4a 1 1919n/a019 19

PAGE 296

296 Table 6-5 continued Unit F7G7 count meanmediansdrangemin max diste LS-L1 71 11.5112711.84.46470430.94 34.9 LS-L2 53 12.8981112.33.97982818.24.5 22.7 LS-L3 4 11.82511.652.4185054.69.7 14.3 LS-L4 5 11.7412.42.2154015.28.8 14 LS-L4a 3 12.8666712.61.3203532.611.7 14.3 LS-L5 1 10.210.2n/a010.2 10.2 LS-L6 3 12.6666713.32.1221064.110.3 14.4 insera LS-L1 73 10.187679.23.731545214.7 25.7 LS-L2 49 11.5653110.16.83646947.23.9 51.1 LS-L3 8 12.887514.354.25455611.57.6 19.1 LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L4a 2 8.758.751.060661.58 9.5 LS-L5 2 5.355.352.4748743.53.6 7.1 LS-L6 3 10.566678.84.4230468.37.3 15.6 mitad LS-L1 23 16.3434815.83.408389167.6 23.6 LS-L2 39 16.1307715.53.16520215.89.8 25.6 LS-L3 4 18.17519.15.48171212.111.2 23.3 LS-L4 2 15150.8485281.214.4 15.6 LS-L4a 2 14.4514.450.0707110.114.4 14.5 LS-L5 2 14.214.21.1313711.613.4 15 LS-L6 3 15.616.53.7322927.311.5 18.8 unidentified vessel type LS-L1 407 11.7783810.46.87337851.31.5 52.8 LS-L2 328 12.9820112.77.43453953.82.9 56.7 LS-L3 52 15.9192314.59.40273346.54.2 50.7 LS-L4 22 10.463648.955.69197820.53.5 24 LS-L4a 12 9.1757.64.65815514.24.6 18.8 LS-L5 16 15.4937513.911.629749.63.4 53 LS-L6 29 14.614.56.89285332.64.6 37.2 Unit G7-North count meanmediansdrangemin max diste LS-L1 10 12.0712.35.19209915.34.7 20 insera LS-L1 4 13.42512.25.91685413.97.7 21.6 mitad LS-L1 2 18.0518.051.4849242.117 19.1 jebena LS-L1 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a unidentified vessel type LS-L1 20 12.512.453.68667612.66.7 19.3

PAGE 297

297 Table 6-6 Descriptive statistics for rim diameters by vessel type Unit A2 count meanmediansdrangemin max diste LS-L1 4 13.415.16.42806314.84.3 19.1 LS-L2 7 9.8571437.65.68707813.94.2 18.1 LS-L3 5 11.4412.63.6651068.77 15.7 LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L6 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L7 1 5.25.2n/a05.2 5.2 insera LS-L1 3 9.4333339.72.7098595.46.6 12 LS-L2 7 5.6285715.61.5184584.33.2 7.5 LS-L3 2 5.85.83.6769555.23.2 8.4 LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L6 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L7 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a mitad LS-L1 19 20.5526321.14.05673218.58.7 27.2 LS-L2 8 18.5375193.85224910.613.5 24.1 LS-L3 7 17.7571417.23.0956197.513.9 21.4 LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L6 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L7 1 19.919.9n/a019.9 19.9 jebena LS-L1 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L2 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L3 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L6 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L7 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a unidentified vessel type LS-L1 55 12.3309111.96.04317420.22.2 22.4 LS-L2 40 11.257511.25.99272621.32.5 23.8 LS-L3 29 8.60344884.764863192.2 21.2 LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L5 3 11.1333311.84.7353289.46.1 15.5 LS-L6 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L7 2 9.99.93.6769555.27.3 12.5

PAGE 298

298 Table 6-6 continued Unit C4 count meanmediansdrangemin max diste LS-L1 2 9.99.90.9899491.49.2 10.6 LS-L2 8 9.9258.74.77156815.92.6 18.5 LS-L3 5 8.28.33.3451468.74.6 13.3 LS-L3a 2 8.28.25.65685484.2 12.2 LS-L4 1 6.16.1n/a06.1 6.1 LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a insera LS-L1 4 5.25.350.9831922.14 6.1 LS-L2 9 6.8111116.83.07304610.43.6 14 LS-L3 1 10.210.2n/a 010.2 10.2 LS-L3a 1 2.92.9n/a 02.9 2.9 LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a mitad LS-L1 11 16.3272719.46.80398318.14.4 22.5 LS-L2 23 19.32609184.293571513.7 28.7 LS-L3 8 15.45163.0033319.79.3 19 LS-L3a 7 16.4571417.27.43658921.36.8 28.1 LS-L4 8 15.67516.42.1352486.411.2 17.6 LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a jebena LS-L1 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L2 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L3 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L3a 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a unidentified vessel type LS-L1 56 13.5214313.156.11471325.12.5 27.6 LS-L2 94 13.4574514.95.67767720.92.4 23.3 LS-L3 19 10.121058.65.61927182.5 20.5 LS-L3a 17 10.1411811.66.91529618.82.5 21.3 LS-L4 8 8.86256.654.78149312.42.6 15 LS-L5 1 7.27.2n/a07.2 7.2

PAGE 299

299 Table 6-6 continued Unit J3 count meanmediansdrangemin max diste LS-L1 11 7.56363664.17355311.22.6 13.8 LS-L2 4 4.654.91.2041592.63.1 5.7 LS-L3 16 9.0437510.15.31701315.32.8 18.1 LS-L4 8 11.37512.654.54744814.72.9 17.6 LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a insera LS-L1 5 11.5813.57.10401315.73.7 19.4 LS-L2 3 5.3333335.40.901851.84.4 6.2 LS-L3 5 9.4810.23.4463028.53.5 12 LS-L4 2 5.45.43.8183775.42.7 8.1 LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a mitad LS-L1 4 16.57515.953.7259238.413 21.4 LS-L2 1 1919n/a 019 19 LS-L3 10 17.1519.75.32066216.76.5 23.2 LS-L4 28 15.9035715.74.12476616.75.3 22 LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a jebena LS-L1 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L2 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L3 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L5 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a unidentified vessel type LS-L1 45 11.0311111.45.25620118.32.9 21.2 LS-L2 10 1312.48.85324822.23.5 25.7 LS-L3 70 13.3142914.66.09799921.12.2 23.3 LS-L4 116 11.4224111.15.72547525.62.4 28 LS-L5 5 13.3813.22.3392315.610.2 15.8 Unit J8 count meanmediansdrangemin max diste LS-L1 4 10.97510.43.1308947.18 15.1 LS-L2 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L3 3 11.17.310.9082520.82.6 23.4 LS-L4 1 8.28.2n/a08.2 8.2 insera LS-L1 3 7.6666676.23.0746275.65.6 11.2 LS-L2 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a

PAGE 300

300 Table 6-6 continued LS-L3 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a mitad LS-L1 9 16.6777816.94.46899814.611.2 25.8 LS-L2 1 16.916.9n/a016.9 16.9 LS-L3 1 25.125.1n/a025.1 25.1 LS-L4 3 18.3666718.42.1501944.316.2 20.5 jebena LS-L1 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L2 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L3 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a unidentified vessel type LS-L1 85 12.2705914.16.00364624.32 26.3 LS-L2 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L3 3 13.712.92.981615.811.2 17 LS-L4 9 12.1555611.44.49085514.14.9 19 LS-L4a 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a Unit F7G7 count meanmediansdrangemin max diste LS-L1 70 13.1771415.96.28820320.42.4 22.8 LS-L2 49 13.7204115.64.93207920.82.4 23.2 LS-L3 4 8.857.354.0812588.76 14.7 LS-L4 5 12.4212.35.14752413.84.3 18.1 LS-L4a 3 14.1333314.72.7934455.511.1 16.6 LS-L5 1 12.912.9n/a012.9 12.9 LS-L6 3 15.816.11.4730922.914.2 17.1 insera LS-L1 36 7.1472226.752.0402369.93.5 13.4 LS-L2 24 7.6041677.62.32219511.72.3 14 LS-L3 2 6.86.80.70710716.3 7.3 LS-L4 0 n/an/an/an/an/a n/a LS-L4a 2 4.954.953.3234024.72.6 7.3 LS-L5 1 7.27.2n/a07.2 7.2 LS-L6 1 8.38.3n/a08.3 8.3 mitad LS-L1 22 21.8772722.74.01377816.211.6 27.8 LS-L2 39 17.417.64.204884187.9 25.9 LS-L3 4 18.12517.951.1324752.417.1 19.5

PAGE 301

301 Table 6-6 continued LS-L4 2 17.9517.957.0003579.913 22.9 LS-L4a 2 12.812.80.1414210.212.7 12.9 LS-L5 2 15.215.22.4041633.413.5 16.9 LS-L6 3 17.417.50.5567761.116.8 17.9 unidentified vessel type LS-L1 186 11.8715112.656.69454825.81.8 27.6 LS-L2 183 12.8486314.25.55757923.41.8 25.2 LS-L3 28 12.9571413.055.47711922.82.9 25.7 LS-L4 12 8.8916679.255.20654513.62.6 16.2 LS-L4a 5 11.4411.96.69350416.12.7 18.8 LS-L5 10 12.2915.16.45332818.61.5 20.1 LS-L6 22 12.0181812.954.37728315.12.7 17.8 Unit G7-North count meanmediansdrangemin max diste LS-L1 10 13.1713.157.15076518.13.8 21.9 insera LS-L1 1 7.77.7n/a07.7 7.7 mitad LS-L1 3 18.26667226.8156681210.4 22.4 jebena LS-L1 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a unidentified vessel type LS-L1 27 11.6222210.54.83491616.53.2 19.7

PAGE 302

302 Table 6-7 Vessel types at AG 2004 Unit A2 insera diste mitad jebena refers to total diagnostic N % N % N % N % sherds per level LS-L1 (N=111)* 6 5.4% 43.6%1917.1%00.0% (see Table 6-10) LS-L2 (N=95) 9 9.5% 77.4%88.4%11.1% LS-L3 (N=60) 3 5.0% 58.3%711.7%00.0% LS-L4 (N=0) 0 0.0% 00.0%00.0%00.0% LS-L5 (N=5) 0 0.0% 00.0%00.0%00.0% LS-L6 (N=0) 0 0.0% 00.0%00.0%01.0% LS-L7 (N=5) 0 0.0% 120.0%120.0%00.0% Unit C4 insera diste mitad jebena N % N % N % N % LS-L1 (N=108) 6 5.6% 21.9%1110.2%00.0% LS-L2 (N=215) 12 5.6% 104.7%2310.7%00.0% LS-L3 (N=54) 9 16.7% 59.3%814.8%00.0% LS-L3a (N=45) 3 6.7% 24.4%715.6%00.0% LS-L4 (N=27) 0 0.0% 13.7%829.6%00.0% LS-L5 (N=1) 0 0.0% 00.0%00.0%00.0% Unit J3 insera diste mitad jebena N % N % N % N % LS-L1 (N=100) 7 7.0% 1212.0%44.0%11.0% LS-L2 (N=30) 3 10.0% 413.3%13.3%00.0% LS-L3 (N=140) 6 4.3% 1812.9%107.1%00.0% LS-L4 (N=222) 10 4.5% 83.6%2812.6%00.0% LS-L5 (N=6) 0 0.0% 00.0%00.0%00.0% Unit J8 insera diste mitad jebena N % N % N % N % LS-L1 (N=160) 8 5.0% 42.5%95.6%00.0% LS-L2 (N=4) 1 25.0% 00.0%125.0%00.0% LS-L3 (N=10) 0 0.0% 00.0%00.0%00.0% LS-L4 (N=19) 0 0.0% 15.3%315.8%00.0% LS-L4a (N=1) 0 0.0% 00.0%00.0%00.0% Unit F7G7 insera diste mitad jebena N % N % N % N % LS-L1 (N=576) 73 12.7% 7112.3%234.0%00.0% LS-L2 (N=469) 49 10.4% 5311.3%398.3%00.0% LS-L3 (N=68) 8 11.8% 45.9%45.9%00.0% LS-L4 (N=29) 0 0.0% 517.2%26.9%00.0% LS-L4a (N=19) 2 10.5% 315.8%210.5%00.0% LS-L5 (N=21) 2 9.5% 14.8%29.5%00.0% LS-L6 (N=38) 3 7.9% 37.9%37.9%00.0%

PAGE 303

303 Table 6-8 Decoration elements in the AG 2004 pottery assemblage

PAGE 304

304 Table 6-9 Decoration methods in the AG 2004 pottery assemblage Decorative Method Description Punctates the surface of the clay is impressed by a narrow tool, leaving an ovaloid depression Incisions the surface of the clay is cut by a sharp instrument Appliqu an added piece of clay Incised appliqu an incised design upon an appliqu Ridge a protrusion usually produced by pinching clay into a horizontal line Stamping the result of repeatedly impressing a tool with a carved design into the clay Dragged impressions the result of a tool pressed into the clay and drawn across an area Grooving the result of a tool drawn lightly across the surface, resulting in a shallow depression Finger dimpling impressions made by the tip(s) of the finger Finger dimpling on appliqu impressions upon an appliqu Fingernail/stick impressions crescent-shaped impressions pr oduced by a fingernail or other small tool Paint on porcelain imported whiteware

PAGE 305

305 Table 6-10 Diagnostic pottery frequency by level Stratigraphic Level FrequencyPercent *Note: these frequencies do not include Unit A2 sherds recovered from wall cleanings or LS-L1 11140.2% whose provenience is otherwise unknown LS-L2 9534.4% LS-L3 6021.7% LS-L4 00.0% LS-L5 51.8% LS-L6 00.0% LS-L7 5 1.8% Total A2 pottery 276100.0% Unit C4 LS-L1 10824.0% LS-L2 21547.8% LS-L3 5412.0% LS-L3a 4510.0% LS-L4 276.0% LS-L5 1 0.2% Total C4 pottery 450100.0% Unit J3 LS-L1 10020.1% LS-L2 306.0% LS-L3 14028.1% LS-L4 22244.6% LS-L5 6 1.2% Total J3 pottery 498100.0% Unit J8 LS-L1 16082.5% LS-L2 42.1% LS-L3 105.2% LS-L4 199.8% LS-L4a 1 0.5% Total J8 pottery 194100.0%

PAGE 306

306 Table 6-10 continued Stratigraphic Level FrequencyPercent Unit F7G7 LS-L1 57647.2% LS-L2 46938.4% LS-L3 685.6% LS-L4 292.4% LS-L4a 191.6% LS-L5 211.7% LS-L6 38 3.1% Total F7G7 pottery 1220100.0%

PAGE 307

307 Table 6-11 Inclusion types in the AG 2004 pottery assemblage Inclusion Type Sherd FrequencyPercent Unit A2 No inclusions 175.4% Quartz 123.8% Mica 196.1% Grog 15951.0% Ash 92.9% Quartz and mica 31.0% Grog and ash 258.0% Quartz and ash 41.3% Quartz and grog 319.9% Mica and grog 3210.3% Quartz, mica and grog 1 0.3% Total A2 312100.0% Unit C4 No inclusions 357.4% Quartz 296.1% Mica 367.6% Grog 20743.9% Ash 408.5% Quartz and mica 61.3% Grog and ash 255.3% Quartz and ash 71.5% Quartz, grog, and ash 20.4% Mica and ash 40.8% Quartz and grog 4810.2% Mica and grog 296.1% Quartz, mica and grog 4 0.8% Total C4 472100.0% Unit J3 No inclusions 244.8% Quartz 61.2% Mica 5210.4% Grog 15831.5% Ash 7915.8% Quartz and mica 30.6% Grog and ash 387.6%

PAGE 308

308 Table 6-11 continued Inclusion Type Sherd FrequencyPercent Unit J3 continued Quartz and ash 244.8% Mica and ash 316.2% Quartz, grog and ash 71.4% Quartz and grog 214.2% Mica and grog 428.4% Quartz, mica and grog 61.2% Quartz, mica and ash 61.2% Mica, grog and ash 4 0.8% Total J3 501100.0% Unit J8 No inclusions 147.2% Quartz 126.2% Mica 189.3% Grog 10152.1% Ash 126.2% Quartz and mica 10.5% Grog and ash 52.6% Quartz and ash 10.5% Quartz and grog 2010.3% Mica and grog 73.6% Quartz, mica and grog 3 1.5% Total J8 194100.0% Unit F7G7 No inclusions 625.0% Quartz 252.0% Mica 907.3% Grog 33226.8% Ash 34327.7% Quartz and mica 60.5% Grog and ash 21117.0% Quartz and ash 362.9% Mica and ash 282.3% Quartz, grog and ash 171.4% Quartz and grog 352.8% Mica and grog 383.1%

PAGE 309

309 Table 6-11 continued Inclusion Type Sherd FrequencyPercent Unit F7G7 continued Quartz, mica and grog 40.3% Quartz, mica and ash 30.2% Mica, grog and ash 70.6% Quartz, mica, grog and ash 1 0.1% Total F7G7 1238100.0% Unit G7-North No inclusions 00.0% Quartz 00.0% Mica 00.0% Grog 1534.1% Ash 1534.1% Quartz and mica 12.3% Grog and ash 613.6% Quartz and ash 12.3% Quartz and grog 36.8% Mica and grog 3 6.8% Total G7-North 44100.0% Unit G7-West No inclusions 18.3% Quartz 00.0% Mica 18.3% Grog 18.3% Ash 325.0% Grog and ash 216.7% Quartz and ash 325.0% Quartz, grog and ash 1 8.3% Total G7-West 12100.0%

PAGE 310

310Table 6-12 Surface treatment patterns in the AG 2004 pottery assemblage Unit A2 LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L4 LS-L5 LS-L6 LS-L7 N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Diste Interior and exterior slip 3 75.0% 4 57.1% 2 40.0% 1 100.0% Interior slip/exterior smooth 1 25.0% Interior slip/exterior burnish 3 42.9% 3 60.0% Insera Interior and exterior slip 3 50.0% 7 77.8% 2 66.7% Interior smooth/exterior slip 3 50.0% Interior and exterior burnish 1 11.1% Interior burnish/exterior slip 1 11.1% 1 33.3% Mitad Interior and exterior slip 5 26.3% 2 28.6% Interior slip/exterior burnish 10 52.6% 4 57.1% 7 100.0% Interior slip/exterior smooth 4 21.1% 1 14.3% 1 100.0% Interior burnish/exterior slip Unidentified vessel types Interior and exterior slip 38 70.4% 23 53.5% 21 58.3% 2 100.0% Interior and exterior burnish 4 7.4% 4 9.3% 4 11.1% 1 50.0% Interior and exterior smooth 1 1.9% 1 2.3%

PAGE 311

311Table 6-12 continued Interior and exterior plain 1 2.3% Interior slip/exterior burnish 7 13.0% 5 11.6% 3 8.3% Interior burnish/exterior slip 4 7.4% 5 11.6% 4 11.1% Interior smooth/exterior burnish 1 2.3% 1 2.8% Interior smooth/exterior slip 3 7.0% 3 8.3% 1 50.0% Unit C4 LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L3a LS-L4 LS-L5 N % N % N % N % N % N % Diste Interior and exterior slip 1 50.0% 8 80.0% 1 20.0% 2 100.0% Interior smooth/exterior slip 1 50.0% Interior slip/exterior burnish 1 20.0% 3 60.0% 1 100.0% Interior slip/exterior smooth 1 20.0% Interior burnish/exterior slip 1 20.0% Insera Interior and exterior slip 5 83.3% 6 54.5% 2 66.7% Interior smooth/exterior slip 1 9.1% 4 44.4% 1 33.3% Interior and exterior burnish 1 9.1% Interior burnish/exterior slip 1 16.7% 2 18.2% 5 55.6% Interior plain/exterior slip 1 9.1%

PAGE 312

312Table 6-12 continued Mitad Interior and exterior slip 5 55.6% 5 22.7% 3 42.8% 2 28.6% 2 28.6% Interior slip/exterior burnish 2 22.2% 6 27.3% 2 28.6% 5 71.4% 4 57.1% Interior slip/exterior smooth 10 45.5% 2 28.6% 1 14.3% Interior burnish/exterior slip 1 11.1% Interior slip/exterior plain 1 11.1% Interior and exterior burnish 1 4.5% Unidentified vessel types Interior and exterior slip 35 67.3% 72 57.1% 18 64.3% 19 73.1% 9 60.0% 1 100.0% Interior slip/exterior burnish 5 9.6% 13 10.3% 1 3.6% 3 11.5% 3 20.0% Interior slip/exterior smooth 2 3.8% 5 4.0% Interior burnish/exterior slip 3 5.8% 7 5.6% 7 25.0% 1 3.8% 1 6.7% Interior and exterior burnish 3 2.4% 1 3.8% Interior plain/exterior slip 3 5.8% 10 8.0% 1 3.6% Interior smooth/exterior slip 4 7.7% 13 10.3% 1 3.6% 2 7.7% 2 13.3% Interior smooth/exterior burnish 3 2.4% Unit J3 LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L4 N % N % N % N % Diste Interior and exterior slip 8 66.7% 4 100.0% 10 55.6% 2 25.0%

PAGE 313

313Table 6-12 continued Interior and exterior burnish 1 8.3% 2 11.1% 5 62.5% Interior and exterior smoothing 2 16.7% 1 5.6% Interior slip/exterior burnish 1 8.3% 3 16.7% Interior slip/exterior smooth 1 12.5% Interior burnish/exterior slip 1 5.6% Interior burnish/exterior smooth 1 5.6% Insera Interior and exterior slip 1 16.7% 2 66.7% 2 33.3% 4 44.4% Interior and exterior burnish 1 16.7% Interior and exterior smooth 1 16.7% Interior smooth/exterior slip 1 16.7% 1 33.3% Interior burnish/exterior slip 3 50.0% 4 44.4% Interior plain/exterior slip 2 33.3% 1 11.1% Interior smooth/exterior burnish 1 16.7% Mitad Interior and exterior slip 2 66.7% 1 10.0% 7 25.0% Interior and exterior smooth 1 33.3% Interior slip/exterior burnish 1 100.0% 9 90.0% 19 67.9%

PAGE 314

314Table 6-12 continued Interior slip/exterior plain 2 7.1% Jebena Interior smooth/exterior burnish 1 100.0% Unidentified vessel types Interior and exterior slip 24 41.4% 9 75.0% 27 44.3% 81 63.3% 1 33.3% Interior and exterior burnish 6 10.3% 10 16.4% 10 7.8% Interior and exterior smooth 3 5.2% 1 8.3% 4 6.6% Interior and exterior slip & burnish 1 1.7% Interior and exterior plain 1 1.7% 1 1.6% Interior slip/exterior burnish 2 3.4% 21 16.4% 1 33.3% Interior slip/exterior smooth 2 16.7% 8 13.1% 2 1.6% Interior smooth/exterior slip 6 10.3% 1 1.6% 6 4.7% 1 33.3% Interior burnish/exterior slip 1 1.7% 7 11.5% 7 5.5% Interior burnish/exterior smooth 1 1.7% Interior plain/exterior slip 2 3.4% 3 4.9% Interior plain/exterior burnish 4 6.9% Interior plain/exterior smooth 1 1.7% Interior smooth/exterior burnish 6 10.3% 1 0.8%

PAGE 315

315Table 6-12 continued Unit J8 LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L4 N % N % N % Diste Interior and exterior slip 1 25.0% 1 100.0% Interior and exterior burnish 1 25.0% Interior slip/exterior burnish 2 50.0% Insera Interior and exterior slip 5 62.5% Interior burnish/exterior slip 3 37.5% 1 100.0% Mitad Interior and exterior slip 4 44.4% 1 100.0% 1 25.0% Interior slip/exterior burnish 5 55.5% 3 75.0% Unidentified vessel types Interior and exterior slip 67 70.5% 1 100.0% 3 100.0% 5 71.4% Interior and exterior burnish 4 4.2% Interior and exterior smooth 2 2.1% Interior slip/exterior burnish 11 11.6% Interior slip/exterior smooth 2 2.1% Interior burnish/exterior slip 7 7.4% 2 28.6% Interior burnish/exterior smooth 1 1.1%

PAGE 316

316Table 6-12 continued Interior smooth/exterior slip 1 1.1% Unit F7G7 LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L4 LS-L4a LS-L5 LS-L6 N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Diste 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% Interior and exterior burnish 7 9.9% Interior slip/exterior burnish 18 25.4% 14 26.9% 2 50.0% Interior burnish/exterior slip 1 1.4% Insera Interior and exterior slip 50 74.6% 27 61.4% 2 28.6% 1 50.0% 2 100.0% 1 50.0% Interior and exterior burnish 1 1.5% Interior smooth/exterior slip 1 2.3% Interior burnish/exterior slip 16 23.9% 16 36.3% 5 71.4% 1 50.0% 1 50.0% Mitad Interior and exterior slip 2 8.7% 18 46.2% 3 75.0% 1 50.0% 1 50.0% 1 50.0% 3 100.0% Interior and exterior burnish 2 8.7% Interior slip/exterior burnish 18 78.3% 21 53.8% 1 25.0% 1 50.0% 1 50.0% 1 50.0% Interior slip/exterior polish 1 4.3% Unidentified vessel types Interior and exterior slip 182 56.2% 167 61.2% 21 56.8% 14 77.8% 7 70.0% 8 57.1% 13 61.9%

PAGE 317

317Table 6-12 continued Interior and exterior burnish 20 6.2% 3 1.1% 1 2.7% 1 5.6% Interior slip/exterior burnish 37 11.4% 50 18.3% 8 21.6% 1 5.6% 1 10.0% 4 28.6% 6 28.6% Interior burnish/exterior slip 74 22.8% 51 18.7% 7 18.9% 1 5.6% 2 20.0% 2 14.3% 2 9.5% Interior smooth/exterior burnish 2 0.6% Interior smooth/exterior slip 9 2.8% 2 0.7% Porcelain glaze 1 5.6%

PAGE 318

318 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 appliqu 1 0.3% Single appliqu horizontal line 3 1.0% Single appliqu line (direction uid) 23 7.4% Appliqu 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 a nd vertical lines 2 0.6% Incised horizontal and V-overlap lines 1 0.3% Finger pinch in horizontal lin e and finger impressions 1 0.3% Multiple appliqu 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 in t/ext rim and zigzag line 2 0.6% Incised horizontal lines on in t/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 appliqu horizontal line 9 1.9% Single appliqu line (direction uid) 37 7.8% Appliqu 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 appliqu line 2 0.4% multiple= 2 or more red text = decoration type is unique to that unit

PAGE 319

319 Table 6-13 continued Decoration Type Frequency Percent Unit C4 continued Incised horizontal lines (on ext and int rim) 6 1.3% Incised horizontal and zigzag lines 7 1.5% Incised horizontal and diagonal lines 3 0.6% Appliqu horizontal lines and grooved diagonal lines 1 0.2% Appliqu line and incised zigzag line 1 0.2% Finger pinch in horizontal lin e and finger impressions 2 0.4% Multiple appliqu lines (in same direction) 17 3.6% Multiple grooved lines (in same direction) 5 1.1% Multiple incised lines (in same direction) 17 3.6% Incised horizontal lines on in t/ext rim and zigzag line 5 1.1% Incised horizontal lines on in t/ext rim and concentric U 1 0.2% Incised vertical and wavy line 1 0.2% C4 Decoration Total 472 100.0% Unit J3 No decoration 371 74.1% Single incised horizontal line 3 0.6% Single incised line (direction uid) 1 0.2% Incised zigzag line 1 0.2% Single appliqu horizontal line 13 2.6% Single appliqu line (direction uid) 33 6.6% Appliqu circle 1 0.2% Ridge, horizontal 1 0.2% Single dragged grooved line (direction uid) 4 0.8% Finger pinch in line (direction uid) 2 0.4% Finger impressions 1 0.2% Fingernail/stick crescent 1 0.2% Incised horizontal lines (on ext and int rim) 2 0.4% Incised horizontal and zigzag lines 5 1.0% Incised horizontal and diagonal lines 2 0.4% Incised horizontal and wavy lines 1 0.2% Finger pinch in horizontal lin e and finger impressions 1 0.2% Multiple applique lines (in same direction) 20 4.0% Multiple grooved lines (in same direction) 4 0.8% Multiple incised lines (in same direction) 30 6.0% Incised horizontal lines on in t/ext rim and zigzag line 3 0.6%

PAGE 320

320 Tale 6-13 continued Decoration Type Frequency Percent Incised horizontal lines on in t/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 appliqu horizontal line 2 1.0% Single appliqu line (direction uid) 19 9.8% Appliqu lug 1 0.5% Incised horizontal and zigzag lines 4 2.1% Incised horizontal a nd vertical lines 1 0.5% Incised diagonal and direction-uid lines 1 0.5% Incised wavy lines and appliqu line 2 1.0% Incised horizontal lin es and concentric U 1 0.5% Appliqu line and incised zigzag line 1 0.5% Finger pinch and finge rnail crescents 1 0.5% Multiple appliqu 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 in t/ext rim and zigzag line 1 0.5% Incised horizontal lines on in t/ext rim and concentric U 1 0.5% Incised vertical and diagonal lines 2 1.0% J8 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 appliqu horizontal line 34 2.7% Single appliqu line (direction uid) 88 7.1% Appliqu lug 9 0.7% Single grooved line (direction uid) 14 1.1% Dragged impressed wavy line 1 0.1% Finger impressions 3 0.2%

PAGE 321

321 Table 6-13 continued Decoration Type Frequency Percent Unit F7G7 continued Fingernail/stick crescent 3 0.2% Finger impressions on appliqu line 2 0.2% Paint on porcelain, horizontal line 1 0.1% Incised concentric U 1 0.1% Incised horizontal lines (on ext and int rim) 1 0.1% Incised horizontal and zigzag lines 13 1.1% Incised horizontal lines and punctate circles 1 0.1% Incised horizontal a nd vertical lines 4 0.3% Incised diagonal and direction-uid lines 1 0.1% Incised horizontal and wavy lines 1 0.1% Incised horizontal lin es and V with lines 1 0.1% Appliqu horizontal lines and incised V with lines 2 0.2% Appliqu horizontal lines and incised diagonal lines 3 0.2% Appliqu vertical and horizontal lines 2 0.2% Appliqu lug and incised lines 1 0.1% Appliqu horizontal line and grooved vertical line 1 0.1% Finger pinch and finge rnail crescents 4 0.3% Appliqu wavy line 1 0.1% Finger pinch in horizontal lin e and finger impressions 4 0.3% Multiple appliqu lines (in same direction) 49 4.0% Multiple grooved lines (in same direction) 68 5.5% Multiple incised lines (in same direction) 53 4.3% Incised horizontal lines on in t/ext rim and zigzag line 8 0.6% Incised horizontal lines on in t/ext rim and concentric U 2 0.2% Incised horizontal lines on in t/ext rim and diagonal lines 1 0.1% F7G7 Decoration Total 1238 100.0% Unit G7-North No decoration 48 85.7% Single appliqu line (direction uid) 1 1.8% Stamp circle 1 1.8% Multiple appliqu lines (in same direction) 1 1.8% Multiple grooved lines (in same direction) 3 5.4% Multiple incised lines (in same direction) 1 1.8% Incised horizontal lines on int/ext rim and zigzag line 1 1.8% G7-North Decoration Total 56 100.0%

PAGE 322

322 Table 6-14 Decoration locations in the AG 2004 pottery assemblage Location of decoration FrequencyPercent Unit A2 No decoration 23675.6% Exterior body 3511.2% Exterior rim 82.6% Exterior base 10.3% Exterior neck 51.6% Handle 10.3% Shoulder 10.3% Interior rim 10.3% Body: side unidentified (uid) 154.8% Rim: side uid 10.3% Exterior throat 10.3% Interior and exterior rim 51.6% Exterior body and rim 10.3% Exterior body and neck 10.3% Total A2 decoration 312100.0% Unit C4 No decoration 35074.2% Exterior body 4710.0% Exterior rim 61.3% Exterior neck 71.5% Handle 10.2% Interior rim 51.1% Body: side unidentified (uid) 388.1% Exterior throat 40.8% Interior and exterior rim 112.3% Interior and exterior body 10.2% Exterior neck and throat 2 0.4% Total C4 decoration 472100.0% Unit J3 No decoration 37174.1% Exterior body 5310.6% Exterior rim 81.6% Exterior base 10.2% Exterior neck 20.4%

PAGE 323

323 Table 6-14 continued Location of decoration FrequencyPercent Unit J3 continued Shoulder 51.0% Interior rim 20.4% Body: side unidentified (uid) 397.8% Rim: side uid 20.4% Exterior lip 61.2% Lip: side uid 10.2% Exterior throat 20.4% Interior and exterior rim 51.0% Exterior body and rim 20.4% Interior body and rim 10.2% Exterior neck and shoulder 1 0.2% Total J3 decoration 501100.0% Unit J8 No decoration 14072.2% Exterior body 2613.4% Exterior rim 52.6% Exterior neck 21.0% Body: side unidentified (uid) 178.8% Interior and exterior rim 21.0% Interior and exterior body 10.5% Exterior body and rim 1 0.5% Total J8 decoration 194100.0% Unit F7G7 No decoration 85368.9% Exterior body 26921.7% Exterior rim 191.5% Exterior base 20.2% Exterior neck 151.2% Handle 10.1% Shoulder 20.2% Interior rim 20.2% Body: side unidentified (uid) 352.8% Rim: side uid 20.2% Exterior throat 221.8%

PAGE 324

324 Table 6-14 continued Location of decoration FrequencyPercent Unit F7G7 continued Interior and exterior rim 110.9% Exterior neck and shoulder 10.1% Exterior body and rim 20.2% Exterior rim and throat 10.1% Exterior neck and throat 1 0.1% Total F7G7 decoration 1238100.0% Unit G7-North No decoration 4885.7% Exterior body 47.1% Exterior neck 11.8% Body: side unidentified (uid) 23.6% Interior and exterior rim 1 1.8% Total G7-North decoration 56100.0%

PAGE 325

325 Table 6-15 Use alteration frequenc ies in the AG 2004 pottery assemblage Unit A2: exterior use wear LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L4 LS-L5 LS-L6 LS-L7 Diste N % N % N % N % N % N % N % None 1 25.0% 0 0.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%1100.0% Erosion 2 50.0% 4 57.1%240.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%00.0% Pitting 0 0.0% 0 0.0%120.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%00.0% Dull soot 1 25.0% 0 0.0%120.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%00.0% Erosion and dull soot 0 0.0% 2 28.6%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%00.0% Erosion and scratches 0 0.0% 1 14.3%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%00.0% Dull soot and cracking 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 20.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 4 100.0% 7 100.0%5100.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%1100.0% Insera None 3 50.0% 3 33.3%3100.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%00.0% Erosion 2 33.3% 2 22.2%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%00.0% Scratches 1 16.7% 3 33.3%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%00.0% Rim chips 0 0.0% 1 11.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 6 100.0% 9 100.0%3100.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%00.0% Mitad None 1 5.3% 1 12.5%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%00.0% Erosion 9 47.4% 5 62.5%228.6%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%00.0% Pitting 3 15.8% 1 12.5%114.3%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%1100.0% Scratches 0 0.0% 1 12.5%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%00.0% Rim chips 0 0.0% 0 0.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%00.0% Cracking 0 0.0% 0 0.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%00.0% Erosion and dull soot 3 15.8% 0 0.0%342.9%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%00.0% Pitting and dull soot 2 10.5% 0 0.0%114.3%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%00.0% Cracking and dull soot 1 5.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 19 100.0% 8 100.0%7100.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%1100.0% Jebena None 0 0.0% 1 100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%00.0% Unit A2: interior use wear LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L4 LS-L5 LS-L6 LS-L7 Diste N % N % N % N % N % N % N % None 1 25.0% 2 28.6%120.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%1100.0% Erosion 1 25.0% 2 28.6%120.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%00.0% Scratches 2 50.0% 3 42.9%240.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%00.0%

PAGE 326

326 Table 6-15 continued Erosion scratches and cracking 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 20.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 4 0.0% 7 100.0%5100.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%1100.0% Insera None 1 16.7% 1 11.1%133.3%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%00.0% Erosion 3 50.0% 3 33.3%266.7%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%00.0% Pitting 1 16.7% 3 33.3%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%00.0% Scratches 0 0.0% 1 11.1%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%00.0% Erosion and pitting 0 0.0% 1 11.1%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%00.0% Erosion and scratches 1 16.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 6 100.0% 9 100.0%3100.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%00.0% Mitad None 12 63.2% 4 50.0%457.1%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%1100.0% Erosion 1 5.3% 1 12.5%114.3%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%00.0% Scratches 4 21.1% 3 37.5%228.6%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%00.0% Rim chips 1 5.3% 0 0.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%00.0% Cracking 1 5.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 19 100.0% 8 100.0%7100.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%1100.0% Jebena None 0 0.0% 1 100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0%00.0% Unit C4: exterior use wear LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L3a LS-L4 Diste N % N % N % N % N % None 1 50.0% 2 20.0%228.6%00.0%00.0% Erosion 0 0.0% 3 30.0%114.3%00.0%1100.0% Scratches 0 0.0% 1 10.0%342.9%00.0%00.0% Wear on handle 0 0.0% 2 20.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% Dull soot 0 0.0% 0 0.0%114.3%150.0%00.0% Glossy soot 1 50.0% 0 0.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% Erosion and dull soot 0 0.0% 1 10.0%00.0%150.0%00.0% Pitting and dull soot 0 0.0% 1 10.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 2 100.0% 10 100.0%7100.0%2100.0%1100.0% Insera None 3 33.3% 6 50.0%888.9%133.3%00.0% Erosion 1 11.1% 4 33.3%00.0%266.7%00.0% Scratches 4 44.4% 0 0.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%

PAGE 327

327 Table 6-15 continued Wear on handle 0 0.0% 2 16.7%111.1%00.0%00.0% Erosion and rim chips 1 11.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 9 100.0% 12 100.0%9100.0%3100.0%00.0% Mitad None 2 22.2% 0 0.0%00.0%114.3%00.0% Erosion 7 77.8% 13 56.5%112.5%228.6%342.9% pitting 0 0.0% 0 0.0%112.5%00.0%00.0% Dull soot 0 0.0% 1 4.3%112.5%114.3%00.0% Erosion and pitting 0 0.0% 0 0.0%00.0%00.0%228.6% Erosion and scratches 0 0.0% 2 8.7%00.0%114.3%00.0% Erosion and dull soot 0 0.0% 3 13.0%337.5%228.6%00.0% Pitting and dull soot 0 0.0% 4 17.4% 2 25.0% 0 0.0% 2 28.6% Total 9 100.0% 23 100.0%8100.0%7100.0%7100.0% Unit C4: interior use wear LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L3a LS-L4 Diste N % N % N % N % N % None 1 50.0% 6 60.0%120.0%00.0%00.0% Erosion 0 0.0% 1 10.0%120.0%00.0%00.0% Scratches 1 50.0% 3 30.0%120.0%2100.0%1100.0% Rim chips 0 0.0% 0 0.0%120.0%00.0%00.0% Erosion and scratches 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 20.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 2 100.0% 10 100.0%5100.0%2100.0%1100.0% Insera None 0 0.0% 3 27.3%111.1%00.0%00.0% Erosion 3 37.5% 3 27.3%666.7%133.3%00.0% Pitting 0 0.0% 2 18.2%111.1%00.0%00.0% Scratches 4 50.0% 2 18.2%00.0%133.3%00.0% Erosion and pitting 1 12.5% 0 0.0%111.1%00.0%00.0% Erosion and scratches 0 0.0% 1 9.1% 0 0.0% 1 33.3% 0 0.0% Total 8 100.0% 11 100.0%9100.0%3100.0%00.0% Mitad None 7 77.8% 16 69.6%562.5%342.9%571.4% Erosion 1 11.1% 2 8.7%00.0%00.0%00.0% Scratches 1 11.1% 4 17.4%337.5%457.1%114.3% Dull soot 0 0.0% 1 4.3%00.0%00.0%00.0%

PAGE 328

328 Table 6-15 continued Erosion and scratches 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 14.3% Total 9 100.0% 23 100.0%8100.0%7100.0%7100.0% Unit J3: exterior use wear LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L4 LS-L5 Diste N % N % N % N % N % None 7 63.6% 4 100.0%1477.8%8100.0%00.0% Erosion 1 9.1% 0 0.0%15.6%00.0%00.0% Scratches 0 0.0% 0 0.0%15.6%00.0%00.0% Pitting 2 18.2% 0 0.0%211.1%00.0%00.0% Cracking 1 9.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 11 100.0% 4 100.0%18100.0%8100.0%00.0% Insera None 5 71.4% 2 66.7%233.3%19.1%00.0% Erosion 0 0.0% 0 0.0%350.0%436.4%00.0% Pitting 0 0.0% 0 0.0%00.0%19.1%00.0% Rim chips 0 0.0% 0 0.0%00.0%19.1%00.0% Scratches and dull soot 0 0.0% 1 33.3%116.7%00.0%00.0% dull soot 1 14.3% 0 0.0%00.0%19.1%00.0% Erosion and dull soot 0 0.0% 0 0.0%00.0%327.3%00.0% Erosion and pitting 1 14.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 7 100.0% 3 100.0%6100.0%11100.0%00.0% Mitad None 4 100.0% 1 100.0%440.0%520.0%00.0% Erosion 0 0.0% 0 0.0%220.0%936.0%00.0% pitting 0 0.0% 0 0.0%330.0%00.0%00.0% Dull soot 0 0.0% 0 0.0%00.0%14.0%00.0% Erosion and pitting 0 0.0% 0 0.0%00.0%416.0%00.0% Erosion and dull soot 0 0.0% 0 0.0%00.0%312.0%00.0% Erosion and spalling 0 0.0% 0 0.0%00.0%14.0%00.0% Pitting and dull soot 0 0.0% 0 0.0%00.0%28.0%00.0% Scratches and dull soot 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 10.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 4 100.0% 1 100.0%10100.0%25100.0%00.0% Jebena Dull soot 1 100.0% 0 0.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%

PAGE 329

329 Table 6-15 continued Unit J3: interior use wear LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L4 LS-L5 Diste N % N % N % N % N % None 8 72.7% 0 0.0%738.9%562.5%00.0% Erosion 1 9.1% 0 0.0%316.7%00.0%00.0% Pitting 1 9.1% 1 25.0%527.8%112.5%00.0% Scratches 1 9.1% 1 25.0%211.1%225.0%00.0% Erosion and pitting 0 0.0% 0 0.0%15.6%00.0%00.0% Scratches and rim chips 0 0.0% 1 25.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% Pitting and scratches 0 0.0% 1 25.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 11 100.0% 4 100.0%18100.0%8100.0%00.0% Insera None 4 57.1% 0 0.0%116.7%327.3%00.0% Erosion 1 14.3% 0 0.0%00.0%218.2%00.0% pitting 0 0.0% 0 0.0%116.7%19.1%00.0% Scratches 1 14.3% 2 66.7%350.0%436.4%00.0% Glossy soot 1 14.3% 0 0.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% Rim chips 0 0.0% 1 33.3%00.0%00.0%00.0% Pitting and scratches 0 0.0% 0 0.0%00.0%19.1%00.0% Erosion and scratches 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 16.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 7 100.0% 3 100.0%6100.0%11100.0%00.0% Mitad None 3 75.0% 0 0.0%550.0%1967.9%00.0% Erosion 1 25.0% 0 0.0%220.0%517.9%00.0% Scratches 0 0.0% 0 0.0%220.0%310.7%00.0% Glossy soot 0 0.0% 0 0.0%110.0%00.0%00.0% Food residue 0 0.0% 1 100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% Cracking 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 3.6% 0 0.0% Total 4 100.0% 1 100.0%10100.0%28100.0%00.0% Jebena Dull soot 1 100.0% 0 0.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% Unit J8: exterior use wear LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L4 LS-L4a Diste N % N % N % N % N % None 1 25.0% 0 0.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% Erosion 3 75.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 100.0% 0 0.0% Total 4 100.0% 0 0.0%00.0%1100.0%00.0%

PAGE 330

330 Table 6-15 continued Insera None 5 62.5% 0 0.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% Erosion 2 25.0% 0 0.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% Erosion and scratches 1 12.5% 0 0.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% Unidentified 0 0.0% 1 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 8 100.0% 1 100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% Mitad Erosion 2 22.2% 1 100.0%00.0%133.3%00.0% Dull soot 0 0.0% 0 0.0%00.0%133.3%00.0% Erosion and pitting 2 22.2% 0 0.0%00.0%133.3%00.0% Erosion and dull soot 2 22.2% 0 0.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% Erosion and scratches 1 11.1% 0 0.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% Erosion scratches and dull soot 2 22.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 9 100.0% 1 100.0%00.0%3100.0%00.0% Unit J8: interior use wear LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L4 LS-L4a Diste N % N % N % N % N % None 1 25.0% 0 0.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% Erosion 0 0.0% 0 0.0%00.0%1100.0%00.0% Scratches 3 75.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 4 100.0% 0 0.0%00.0%1100.0%00.0% Insera Erosion 3 37.5% 0 0.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% Pitting 2 25.0% 0 0.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% Scratches 1 12.5% 0 0.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% Erosion and pitting 2 25.0% 0 0.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% Unidentified 0 0.0% 1 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 8 100.0% 1 100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% Mitad None 3 33.3% 1 100.0%00.0%3100.0%00.0% Scratches 6 66.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 9 100.0% 1 100.0%00.0%3100.0%00.0%

PAGE 331

331 Table 6-15 continued Unit F7G7: exterior use wear LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L4 LS-L4a LS-L5 LS-L6 Diste N % N % N % N % N % N % N % None 10 14.9% 2 3.8%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Erosion 25 37.3% 17 32.1%250.0%120.0%133.3% 1 100.0% 00.0% Scratches 7 10.4% 2 3.8%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Pitting 3 4.5% 0 0.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Dull soot 0 0.0% 2 3.8%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 133.3% Cracking 0 0.0% 0 0.0%00.0%120.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Pitting and cracking 1 1.5% 0 0.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Erosion and scratches 2 3.0% 8 15.1%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Erosion and dull soot 15 22.4% 17 32.1%250.0%120.0%266.7% 0 0.0% 133.3% Erosion and glossy soot 0 0.0% 1 1.9%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Erosion and pitting 1 1.5% 1 1.9%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Scratches and dull soot 0 0.0% 1 1.9%00.0%120.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Pitting and scratches 1 1.5% 0 0.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 133.3% Erosion scratches and dull soot 2 3.0% 1 1.9%00.0%120.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Erosion scratches and dull soot 0 0.0% 1 1.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 67 100.0 % 53 100.0%4100.0 % 5100.0%3100.0% 1 100.0% 3100.0 % Insera None 37 50.7% 16 25.0%562.5%00.0%150.0% 0 0.0% 133.3% Erosion 25 34.2% 17 26.6%225.0%00.0%150.0% 2 100.0 % 266.7% Scratches 5 6.8% 6 9.4%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Pitting 0 0.0% 2 3.1%112.5%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Cracking 0 0.0% 2 3.1%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Rim chips 2 2.7% 0 0.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Erosion and scratches 2 2.7% 2 3.1%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Erosion and cracking 1 1.4% 2 3.1%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Erosion pitting and scratches 1 1.4% 0 0.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Dull soot 0 0.0% 1 1.6%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Pitting and scratches 0 0.0% 16 25.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

PAGE 332

332 Table 6-15 continued Total 73 100.0 % 64 100.0%8100.0 % 00.0%2100.0% 2 100.0%3100.0% Mitad Erosion 7 30.4% 19 48.7%375.0%150.0%150.0% 0 0.0% 3100.0% Dull soot 1 4.3% 3 7.7%125.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Erosion and pitting 1 4.3% 1 2.6%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Erosion and dull soot 13 56.5% 12 30.8%00.0%00.0%150.0% 2 100.0 % 00.0% Erosion and scratches 0 0.0% 4 10.3%00.0%150.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Pitting and dull soot 1 4.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 23 100.0 % 39 100.0%4100.0 % 2100.0%2100.0% 2 100.0 % 3100.0% Unit F7G7: interior use wear LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L4 LS-L4a LS-L5 LS-L6 Diste N % N % N % N % N % N % N % None 17 23.9% 5 9.4%125.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 133.3% Erosion 19 26.8% 12 22.6%125.0%120.0%266.7% 1 100.0 % 133.3% Pitting 2 2.8% 3 5.7%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Scratches 24 33.8% 16 30.2%125.0%120.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Rim chips 0 0.0% 1 1.9%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Cracking 0 0.0% 0 0.0%00.0%120.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Erosion and pitting 0 0.0% 1 1.9%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Erosion and scratches 7 9.9% 13 24.5%125.0%240.0%133.3% 0 0.0% 00.0% Scratches and dull soot 0 0.0% 0 0.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 133.3% Erosion and glossy soot 1 1.4% 0 0.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Pitting and scratches 1 1.4% 2 3.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 71 100.0% 53 100.0 % 4100.0 % 5100.0%3100.0% 1 100.0 % 3100.0% Insera None 6 8.2% 1 2.1%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Erosion 12 16.4% 8 16.7%225.0%00.0%00.0% 1 50.0% 133.3% Pitting 21 28.8% 14 29.2%112.5%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Scratches 8 11.0% 6 12.5%112.5%00.0%150.0% 1 50.0% 00.0% Cracking 2 2.7% 1 2.1%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Erosion and pitting 12 16.4% 12 25.0%112.5%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 266.7%

PAGE 333

333 Table 6-15 continued Pitting and scratches 6 8.2% 3 6.3%112.5%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Erosion and scratches 5 6.8% 1 2.1%225.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Erosion and cracking 0 0.0% 1 2.1%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Erosion pitting and scratches 0 0.0% 1 2.1%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Erosion pitting and cracking 1 1.4% 0 0.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Pitting, scratches and spalling 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 50.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 73 100.0% 48 100.0 % 8100.0 % 00.0%2100.0% 2 100.0 % 3100.0% Mitad None 13 56.5% 7 17.9%00.0%2100.0%2100.0% 1 50.0% 00.0% Erosion 4 17.4% 17 43.6%250.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 133.3% Scratches 4 17.4% 8 20.5%250.0%00.0%00.0% 1 50.0% 133.3% Cracking 2 8.7% 3 7.7%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Scratches and cracking 0 0.0% 1 2.6%00.0%00.0%00.0% 0 0.0% 00.0% Erosion and scratches 0 0.0% 3 7.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 33.3% Total 23 100.0% 39 100.0 % 4100.0 % 2100.0%2100.0% 2 100.0 % 3100.0% Unit G7-North: exterior use wear LS-L1 Diste N % None 1 10.0% Pitting 1 10.0% Erosion 3 30.0% Dull soot 2 20.0% Erosion and dull soot 3 30.0% Total 10 100.0% Insera Erosion 3 75.0% Scratches 1 25.0% Total 4 100.0% Mitad Erosion 2 100.0% Total 2 100.0%

PAGE 334

334 Table 6-15 continued Unit G7-North: interior use wear LS-L1 Diste N % None 3 30.0% Cracking 1 10.0% Erosion 1 10.0% Scratches 2 20.0% Erosion and scratches 3 30.0% Total 10 100.0% Insera Erosion 1 25.0% Pitting 1 25.0% Erosion and pitting 1 25.0% Cracking 1 25.0% Total 4 100.0% Mitad Cracking 2 100.0% 2 100.0%

PAGE 335

335 Table 6-16 Use alteration fo r unidentified vessel types Use Alteration Exterior surface Interior surface FrequencyPercentFrequency Percent Unit A2 No use alteration 10139.8%95 37.4% Erosion 8232.3%65 25.6% Pitting 103.9%13 5.1% Scratches 135.1%53 20.9% Dull soot 83.1%0 0.0% Glossy soot 10.4%0 0.0% Wear on handle 155.9%0 0.0% Indeterminate 00.0%16 6.3% Rim chips 31.2%2 0.8% Cracking 31.2%1 0.4% Erosion and scratches 20.8%4 1.6% Erosion and pitting 00.0%3 1.2% Erosion and dull soot 103.9%0 0.0% Pitting and dull soot 41.6%0 0.0% Scratches and rim chips 00.0%1 0.4% Dull soot and cracking 20.8%0 0.0% Erosion, scratches and cracking 0 0 1 0.4% Total A2 pottery 254100.0%254 100.0% Unit C4 No use alteration 17144.5%163 42.4% Erosion 12131.5%93 24.2% Pitting 51.3%17 4.4% Scratches 194.9%81 21.1% Dull soot 123.1%1 0.3% Glossy soot 10.3%0 0.0% Wear on handle 174.4%0 0.0% Indeterminate 10.3%14 3.6% Rim chips 20.5%3 0.8% Erosion and scratches 41.0%9 2.3% Erosion and pitting 30.8%3 0.8% Erosion and dull soot 143.6%0 0.0% Erosion and rim chips 10.3%0 0.0% Erosion and cracking 10.3%0 0.0% Pitting and scratches 10.3%0 0.0% Pitting and dull soot 102.6%0 0.0%

PAGE 336

336 Table 6-16 continued Use Alteration Exterior surface Interior surface FrequencyPercentFrequency Percent Unit C4 continued Scratches and dull soot 1 0.3% 0 0.0% Total C4 pottery 384100.0%384 100.0% Unit J3 No use alteration 24261.9%211 54.0% Erosion 8221.0%60 15.3% Pitting 133.3%23 5.9% Scratches 71.8%49 12.5% Dull soot 143.6%3 0.8% Glossy soot 00.0%2 0.5% Spalling 10.3%1 0.3% Food residue 00.0%3 0.8% Wear on handle 20.5%0 0.0% Indeterminate 30.8%20 5.1% Rim chips 10.3%5 1.3% Cracking 10.3%3 0.8% Erosion and scratches 30.8%1 0.3% Erosion and pitting 51.3%6 1.5% Erosion and dull soot 92.3%0 0.0% Pitting and scratches 00.0%3 0.8% Pitting and dull soot 41.0%0 0.0% Scratches and dull soot 30.8%0 0.0% Scratches and rim chips 00.0%1 0.3% Erosion and spalling 1 0.3% 0 0.0% Total J3 pottery 391100.0%391 100.0% Unit J8 No use alteration 6343.8%50 34.7% Erosion 4430.6%43 29.9% Pitting 32.1%9 6.3% Scratches 53.5%25 17.4% Dull soot 21.4%0 0.0% Wear on handle 85.6%0 0.0% Indeterminate 10.7%11 7.6% Cracking 00.0%1 0.7% Erosion and scratches 53.5%2 1.4%

PAGE 337

337 Table 6-16 continued Use Alteration Exterior surface Interior surface FrequencyPercentFrequency Percent Unit J8 continued Erosion and pitting 42.8%3 2.1% Erosion and dull soot 64.2%0 0.0% Pitting and scratches 10.7%0 0.0% Erosion, scratches and dull soot 2 1.4% 0 0.0% Total J8 pottery 144100.0%144 100.0% Unit F7G7 No use alteration 32728.5%207 18.0% Erosion 47941.8%301 26.2% Pitting 131.1%135 11.8% Scratches 524.5%215 18.7% Dull soot 383.3%1 0.1% Glossy soot 10.1%0 0.0% Food residue 00.0%2 0.2% Wear on handle 221.9%0 0.0% Indeterminate 20.2%47 4.1% Rim chips 40.3%3 0.3% Cracking 90.8%23 2.0% Erosion and scratches 464.0%77 6.7% Erosion and pitting 141.2%95 8.3% Erosion and dull soot 1089.4%1 0.1% Erosion and glossy soot 30.3%1 0.1% Erosion and rim chips 30.3%0 0.0% Erosion and cracking 60.5%1 0.1% Erosion and food residue 00.0%1 0.1% Pitting and scratches 40.3%26 2.3% Pitting and dull soot 20.2%0 0.0% Pitting and cracking 10.1%2 0.2% Scratches and dull soot 20.2%1 0.1% Scratches and rim chips 00.0%1 0.1% Scratches and wear on handle 10.1%0 0.0% Scratches and spalling 10.1%0 0.0% Scratches and cracking 00.0%2 0.2% Cracking and spalling 00.0%1 0.1% Dull soot and cracking 10.1%0 0.0% Erosion, scratches and dull soot 60.5%0 0.0%

PAGE 338

338 Table 6-16 continued Use Alteration Exterior surface Interior surface FrequencyPercentFrequency Percent Unit F7G7 continued Erosion, pitting and dull soot 10.1%0 0.0% Erosion, pitting and scratches 10.1%1 0.1% Erosion, pitting and cracking 00.0%1 0.1% Erosion, pitting and food residue 00.0%1 0.1% Pitting, scratches and spalling 0 0.0% 1 0.1% Total F7G7 pottery 1147100.0%1147 100.0% Unit G7-North No use alteration 820.5%7 17.9% Erosion 1743.6%12 30.8% Pitting 12.6%3 7.7% Scratches 410.3%6 15.4% Dull soot 410.3%0 0.0% Cracking 00.0%4 10.3% Erosion and scratches 12.6%3 7.7% Erosion and pitting 00.0%2 5.1% Erosion and dull soot 410.3%0 0.0% Pitting and scratches 0 0.0% 2 5.1% Total G7-North pottery 39100.0%39 100.0% Unit G7-West No use alteration 327.3%2 18.2% Erosion 218.2%3 27.3% Scratches 327.3%3 27.3% Erosion and scratches 19.1%1 9.1% Erosion and pitting 00.0%2 18.2% Erosion and dull soot 2 18.2% 0 0.0% Total G7-West pottery 11100.0%11 100.0% *Note: sherds with usewear on unidentifiabl e surfaces are not included in this table.

PAGE 339

339Table 6-17 Rim type frequency Unit A2 LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L4 LS-L5 LS-L6 LS-L7 N %N%N%N% N %N%N% Diste Rounded (#1) 114.3%480.0% Square (#3) 228.6%1 20.0% 1 100.0% with lip (#5) 1 25.0%114.3% Tapered (#6) 1 25.0%228.6% Rounded with lip(#8) 1 14.3% Hemicircle (#11) 2 50.0% Total diste rims 4 100.0%7100.0%5100.0% 1100.0% Insera Rounded (#1) 114.3%150.0% Curved (#2) 2 66.7%342.9%1 50.0% Square with lip (#5) 1 33.3% Pointed concave (#7) 3 42.9% Total insera rims 3 100.0%7100.0%2100.0% Mitad Rounded (#1) 3 15.8% 228.6% Square (#3) 325.0% 1 100.0% Square with lip (#5) 541.7% Rounded with lip(#8) 15 78.9%4 33.3% 5 71.4% Square flare with ridge (#16) 1 5.3% Total mitad rims 19 100.0%12100.0%7100.0% 1100.0% Unidentifiable vessels Rounded (#1) 19 51.4%2268.8%1973.1% 1 50.0% 150.0% Curved (#2) 3 8.1%13.1%27.7% Square (#3) 1 2.7%13.1%13.8% 1 50.0%

PAGE 340

340Table 6-17 continued Square with lip (#5) 3 8.1%26.3%13.8% Tapered (#6) 6 16.2%26.3%27.7% Pointed concave (#7) 1 2.7% Square flare (#10) 13.1% Hemicircle (#11) 4 10.8% 26.3% 1 50.0% Sloped (#13) 1 3.1% 1 3.8% Total unidentified vessel rims 37 100.0%32100.0%26100.0% 2 100.0% 2100.0% Unit C4 LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L3a LS-L4 LS-L5 N % N % N % N % N % N % Diste Rounded (#1) 1 50.0%222.2%240.0% 1 100.0% Curved (#2) 120.0%150.0% Square (#3) 111.1% Square with lip (#5) 555.6% Tapered (#6) 1 11.1% 120.0% Rounded with lip(#8) 1 50.0% 1 20.0% Hemicircle (#11) 1 50.0% Total diste rims 2 100.0%9100.0%5100.0%2100.0% 1 100.0% Insera Curved (#2) 1 33.3%233.3%1 100.0% Tapered (#6) 1 33.3%116.7% Pointed concave (#7) 1 33.3% 233.3% 1 100.0% Square flare (#10) 1 16.7% Total insera rims 3 100. 0%6100.0%1100.0%1100.0% Mitad Rounded (#1) 2 18.2%833.3%450.0%342.9% 5 62.5% Square with lip (#5) 1 9.1%520.8% 1 12.5%

PAGE 341

341Table 6-17 continued Tapered (#6) 2 18.2% Rounded with lip(#8) 5 45.5%937.5%4 50.0% 228.6% 1 12.5% Sloped with lip (#9) 2 8.3% Hemicircle (#11) 1 9.1% 114.3% 1 12.5% Round with lip and ridge (#14) 1 14.3% Total mitad rims 11 100.0%24100.0%8100.0%7100.0% 8 100.0% Unidentifiable vessels Rounded (#1) 28 59.6%4154.7%738.9%426.7% 3 37.5% Curved (#2) 2 4.3% 316.7%16.7% 1 12.5%1 100.0% Square (#3) 1 2.1%22.7% 1 12.5% Square with lip (#5) 1 2.1%34.0% Tapered (#6) 3 6.4%68.0%316.7%533.3% 2 25.0% Pointed concave (#7) 2 4.3%11.3% Rounded with lip(#8) 5 10.6%1418.7%15.6%320.0% 1 12.5% Sloped with lip (#9) 1 2.1%45.3%15.6%16.7% Square flare (#10) 15.6% Hemicircle (#11) 2 4.3%34.0%15.6% Sloped (#13) 2 4.3% 1 1.3% 1 6.7% Round flare (#15) 1 5.6% Total unidentified vessel rims 47 100.0%75100.0%18100.0%15100.0% 8 100.0%1100.0% Unit J3 LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L4 LS-L5 N % N % N % N % N % Diste Rounded (#1) 250.0%533.3%225.0% Curved (#2) 1 20.0% 16.7% Square (#3) 112.5% Square with lip (#5) 112.5% Tapered (#6) 2 40.0%2 50.0% 426.7%

PAGE 342

342Table 6-17 continued Rounded with lip(#8) 1 20.0% 213.3% Sloped with lip (#9) 16.7%112.5% Square flare (#10) 112.5% hemicircle (#11) 1 20.0% 2 13.3% 112.5% sloped (#13) 1 12.5% Total diste rims 5 100.0%4100.0%15100.0%8100.0% 0 0.0% Insera Rounded (#1) 240.0%133.3% Curved (#2) 3 60.0%266.7%120.0%133.3% Square with lip (#5) 120.0% Tapered (#6) 1 20.0% Pointed concave (#7) 2 40.0% 1 33.3% 1 33.3% Total insera rims 5 100.0%3 100.0%5100.0%3100.0% 0 0.0% Mitad Rounded (#1) 3 75.0% 770.0%932.1% Curved (#2) 13.6% Square (#3) 1 25.0% 1 100.0% 414.3% Square with lip (#5) 110.0%310.7% Rounded with lip(#8) 110.0%414.3% Sloped with lip (#9) 27.1% Hemicircle (#11) 1 10.0% 414.3% Sloped (#13) 1 3.6% Total mitad rims 4 100.0%1100.0%10100.0%28100.0% 0 0.0% Unidentifiable vessels Rounded (#1) 26 59.1%327.3%3047.6%4240.4% 2 40.0% Curved (#2) 5 11.4% 34.8%109.6% Square (#3) 2 4.5% 812.7%1615.4% 1 20.0% Square with lip (#5) 3 6.8%218.2%11.6%11.0% 2 40.0%

PAGE 343

343Table 6-17 continued Tapered (#6) 4 9.1%327.3%69.5%87.7% Pointed concave (#7) 11.6%11.0% Rounded with lip(#8) 1 2.3%19.1%711.1%1211.5% Sloped with lip (#9) 1 2.3% 23.2% Square flare (#10) 1 2.3% 23.2% Hemicircle (#11) 1 2.3% 2 18.2% 3 4.8% 109.6% Sloped (#13) 4 3.8% Total unidentified vessel rims 44 100.0%11100. 0%63100.0%104100.0% 5 100.0% Unit J8 LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L4 N % N % N % N % Diste Rounded (#1) 1 25.0% 1 100.0% Square (#3) 2 50.0% Tapered (#6) 133.3% Rounded with lip(#8) 133.3% Square flare (#10) 1 25.0% Hemicircle (#11) 1 33.3% Total diste rims 4 100.0%00.0%3100.0%1100.0% Insera Rounded (#1) 2 66.7% Curved (#2) 1 33.3% Total insera rims 3 100.0%00.0%00.0%00.0% Mitad Rounded (#1) 2 22.2% 133.3% Square (#3) 1 100.0% Square with lip (#5) 2 66.7% Rounded with lip(#8) 4 44.4% 1 100.0%

PAGE 344

344Table 6-17 continued Sloped with lip (#9) 1 11.1% Hemicircle (#11) 2 22.2% Total mitad sherds 9 100.0%1100.0%1100.0%3100.0% Unidentifiable vessels Rounded (#1) 37 53.6% 133.3%342.9% Curved (#2) 4 5.8% Square (#3) 6 8.7% 342.9% Square with lip (#5) 1 1.4% 133.3% Tapered (#6) 6 8.7% Pointed concave (#7) 1 1.4% Rounded with lip(#8) 11 15.9% 1 33.3% Hemicircle (#11) 3 4.3% 1 14.3% Total unidentified vessel rims 69 100.0%00.0%3100.0%7100.0% Unit F7G7 LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L4 LS-L4a LS-L5 LS-L6 N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Diste Rounded (#1) 24 34.3%1939.6%125.0%240.0% 2 100.0% 1 100.0% Curved (#2) 3 4.3%24.2% Square (#3) 6 8.6%816.7%125.0%120.0% Square with lip (#5) 5 7.1%36.3% Tapered (#6) 9 12.9%12.1%2 50.0% Pointed concave (#7) 1 1.4%12.1% Rounded with lip(#8) 9 12.9%714.6% Sloped with lip (#9) 2 40.0% Square flare (#10) 7 10.0%48.3% Hemicircle (#11) 2 2.9%3 6.3% Sloped (#13) 3 4.3% Rounded with point and lip (#19) 1 1.4% Total diste rims 70 100.0%48100.0%4100.0%5100.0% 2 100.0%1100.0%00.0%

PAGE 345

345Table 6-17 continued Insera Rounded (#1) 3 8.6%14.8%2 100.0% 1 100.0% Curved (#2) 27 77.1%1676.2% 1 50.0% 1 100.0% Square (#3) 2 5.7% Square with lip (#5) 1 2.9%14.8% Tapered (#6) 14.8% Pointed concave (#7) 1 2.9% 1 50.0% Hemicircle (#11) 1 2.9% 14.8% Square concave (#18) 1 4.8% Total insera rims 35 100.0%21100.0% 2100.0%00.0% 2 100. 0%1100.0%1100.0% Mitad Rounded (#1) 4 18.2%1847.4%375.0%150.0% 1 50.0% Square (#3) 12.6% Rounded with lip(#8) 18 81.8% 1847.4%1 25.0% 1 50.0% 150.0%3 100.0% Hemicircle (#11) 1 50.0% 1 50.0% Sloped (#13) 1 2.6% Total mitad rims 22 100.0%38100.0%4100.0%2100.0% 2 100.0%2100.0%3100.0% Unidentifiable vessels Rounded (#1) 65 39.4%6239.7%942.9%990.0% 3 75.0%220.0%1164.7% Curved (#2) 15 9.1%159.6%14.8% 110.0%15.9% Square (#3) 12 7.3%106.4%14.8% 220.0%15.9% Square with lip (#5) 3 1.8%42.6%14.8% Tapered (#6) 19 11.5%127.7%314.3% 110.0%15.9% Pointed concave (#7) 6 3.6%31.9% 1 25.0% Rounded with lip(#8) 29 17.6%4629.5%314.3%1 10.0% 330.0%211.8% Sloped with lip (#9) 1 0.6% Square flare (#10) 2 1.2%31.9%14.8% Hemicircle (#11) 7 4.2%1 0.6% 2 9.5% 1 10.0% 1 5.9% Sloped (#13) 4 2.4%

PAGE 346

346Table 6-17 continued Hemicircle with lip (#17) 2 1.2% Total unidentified vessel rims 165 100.0%156100.0%21100.0%10100.0% 4 100.0%10 100.0%17100.0% Unit G7-North LS-L1 Diste N % Rounded (#1) 2 20.0% Curved (#2) 2 20.0% Square (#3) 2 20.0% Tapered (#6) 1 10.0% Pointed concave (#7) 1 10.0% Rounded with lip (#8) 2 20.0% Total diste rims 10 100.0% Insera Curved (#2) 1 100.0% Mitad Rounded (#1) 1 50.0% Rounded with lip(#8) 1 50.0% Total mitad rims 2 100.0% Unidentifiable vessels Rounded (#1) 13 52.0% Curved (#2) 2 8.0% Square (#3) 2 8.0% Tapered (#6) 3 12.0% Rounded with lip (#8) 3 12.0% Hemicircle (#11) 1 4.0% Sloped (#13) 1 4.0% Total unidentified vessel rims 25 100.0%

PAGE 347

347 Table 6-18 Slag frequencie s and weights from AG 2004 Unit Level N Weight (g) Mean Weight (g) A2 1 1 3.2 3.2 2 2 3.4 1.7 7 4 7.6 1.9 total A2 slag 7 14.2 C4 5 1 4.9 4.9 total C4 slag 1 4.9 F7G7 1 2529 2391.6 1.3 1a 17 56.4 3.3 2 15 44.1 2.9 4 4 4.0 1.0 4a 5 6.6 1.3 6 7 29.4 4.2 total F7G7 slag 2577 2532.1 G7-N 1 1 5.6 5.6 total G7-N slag 1 5.6 J3 1 2 6.1 3.1 3 9 119.7 13.3 4 3 3.3 1.1 total J3 slag 14 129.1

PAGE 348

348 A B C D Figure 6-1 The main vessel types in Beta Israel po ttery A) jebena (coffee pot); B) mitad (injera plate); C) diste (bowl); D) inse ra (jar). Sources for B) da veblacklonline.com; for D)World Health Organization 2006

PAGE 349

349 Rim Type #1: Rounded Rim Type #2: Curved Rim Type #3: Square Rim Type #5: Square with Lip Figure 6-2 Rim types at AG 2004

PAGE 350

350 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

PAGE 351

351 Rim Type #11: Hemicircle Rim Type #13: Sloped Rim Type #14: Rounded with Lip Rim Type #15: Round Flare and edge Rim Type #16: Square Flare with Ridge Rim Type #17: Hemicircle with Lip Rim Type #18: Square Concave Rim Type #19: Rounded with Point Figure 6-2 continued *Interior/exterior indeterminate broken

PAGE 352

352 A Figure 6-3 Vessel types and rims A) distoch, B) inseroch, C) mitadoch, D) indeterminate vessel type

PAGE 353

353 B Figure 6-3 continued

PAGE 354

354 C Figure 6-3 continued

PAGE 355

355 D Figure 6-3 continued

PAGE 356

356 no slip interior surface exterior surface interior and exterior surfaces location of slip 0 50 100 150Count 8 86 133 16 62 157 157 73 vessel shape insera diste mitad jebena Figure 6-4 Slip fre quencies by vessel type

PAGE 357

357 inseradistemitadjebena vessel type 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0t h i c k n e s s (m m ) vessel type count mean medians.d.rangeminmax insera 238 11.22983 9.66.72909148.42.751.1 diste 243 11.14774 11.34.00543331.83.134.9 mitad 240 15.54542 15.53.188076196.625.6 jebena 2 6.1 6.11.6970562.44.97.3 Figure 6-5 Mean sherd thickness by vessel shape

PAGE 358

358 inseradistemitad vessel shape 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0rim thickness (mm) Figure 6-6 Mean rim thickness by vessel type

PAGE 359

359 Figure 6-7 Exterior ri m and handle of butter-making vessel from unit A2

PAGE 360

360 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% i n t e r i o r an d e x t e r i o r s l i p i n t e r i o r a n d e x t e r i o r b u r n i s h i n t e r i o r s l i p / e x t e r i o r b u r n i s h i n t e r i o r s l i p / e x t e ri o r s m o o t h i n t e r i o r b u r n i s h / e x t e r i o r s l i p i n t e r i o r s m o o t h / e x t er i o r s l i p u i d : s l i p / b u r n i s h diste insera jebena mita d A Figure 6-8 Surface treatment by vessel type. A) Unit A2 B) Unit C4 C) Unit J3 D) Unit J8 E) Unit F7G7 F) Unit G7-North 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 7 7 1 1 6 6 2 2 1 1 1 1 6 6 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1

PAGE 361

361 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% i n t e r i o r a n d e x t e r i o r s l i p i n t e r i o r a n d e x t e r i o r b u r n i s h i n t e r i o r s l i p / e x t e r i o r b u r n i s h i n t e r i o r s l i p / e x t e r i o r s m o o t h i n t e r i o r b u r ni s h / e x t e r i o r s l i p i n t e r i o r s m o o t h / e x t e r i o r s l i p i n t e r i o r i n d e t e r m i n a t e / e x t e r i o r s l i p u i d : s l i p / b u r n i s h u i d : s l i p / s m o o t h i n g u i d : s l i p / i n d e t e r m i n a t e i n t e r i o r s l i p / e x t e r i o r p l a i n i n t e r i o r s l i p / e x t e r i o r i n d e t e r m i n a t e i n t e r i o r p l a i n / e x t e r i o r s l i p diste insera mita d B Figure 6-8 Continued 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 7 7 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 1 9 9 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 8 8 1 1 1 1 6 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1

PAGE 362

362 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% i n t e r i o r a n d e x t e r i o r s l i p i n t e r i o r a n d e x t e r i o r b u r n i s h i n t e r i o r a n d e x t e r i o r s m o o t h i n g i n t e r i o r b u r n i s h / e x t e r i o r s l i p i n t e r i o r b u r n i s h / e x t e r i o r s m o o t h i n t e r i o r s l i p / e x t e r i o r b u r n i s h i n t e r i o r s l i p / e x t e r i o r s m o o t h i n t e r i o r in d e t e r m i n a t e / e x t e r i o r b u r n i s h i n t e r i o r p l a i n / e x t e r i o r s l i p i n t e r i o r s l i p / e x t e r i o r p l a i n i n t e r i o r s m o o t h / e x t e r i o r b u r n i s h i n t e r i o r s m o o t h / e x t e r i o r s l i p u i d : s l i p / b u r n i s h u i d : s l i p / p l a i n diste insera jebena mitad C Figure 6-8 Continued 2 2 4 4 9 9 1 1 0 0 3 3 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 1 1 9 9 2 2 9 9 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1

PAGE 363

363 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% interior and exterior slip interior and exterior burnish interior burnish/exterior slip interior slip/exterior burnish uid: slip/burnish diste insera mita d D Figure 6-8 Continued 5 5 6 6 7 7 1 1 3 3 2 2 7 7 1 1

PAGE 364

364 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% int e rior a nd e xt e rior s l i p i nterior and exte ri or burni s h i nt erior burnish/exterior sl i p int e ri or sli p/ e xte ri or burni s h int e ri or smoot h/ ext e rior s l i p i nte ri or slip/e xt eri or pol i s h i nte ri or a n d exte ri or porc e la i n gl az e i nte ri or i nde t erm i nat e /e xt eri or s l i p diste insera mitad E Figure 6-8 Continued 9 9 6 6 8 8 3 3 2 2 9 9 7 7 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 3 8 8 3 3 4 4 1 1 4 4 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2

PAGE 365

365 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% interior and exterior slip interior and exterior burnish interior burnish/exterior slip interior slip/exterior burnish diste insera mita d F Figure 6-8 Continued 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% LS-L1LS-L2LS-L3LS-L4LS-L5LS-L6LS-L7 interior and exterior slip interior and exterior burnish interior and exterior smoothing interior burnish/exterior slip interior slip/exterior burnish interior slip/exterior smooth interior smooth/exterior slip interior smooth/exterior burnish interior and exterior plain Figure 6-9 Unit A2: surface treatment over time 7 7 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 2 2

PAGE 366

366 A B C D Figure 6-10 Different decoration types in unit A2. A) Single appliqu horizo ntal line; B) incised horizontal and zigzag lines; C) Appliqu and incised wavy lin e; D) incised horizontal and diagonal lines

PAGE 367

367 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% no d ec o r a tion in cis e d z igz a g line incised wavy lin e on a plique s in gle a p pliqu line f ing erna il/s tic k c r e s c en t incised h orizontal and vertica l lines multiple a ppliqu line s incised h orizontal lines on rim and diagonal line s diste insera mitad jebena A Figure 6-11 Decoration type by vess el type. A) Unit A2; B) Unit C4; C) Unit J3; D) Unit J8; E) Unit F7G7; F) Unit G7-North 1 1 6 6 1 1 1 1 3 3 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

PAGE 368

368 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% no d ec or at i on single appliqu line m u lt i pl e appliqu l i ne s multiple incis e d lines finger impressions on appliqu line multiple hori z o nt al i n ci se d l i ne s o n r i m diste insera mita d B Figure 6-11 Continued 1 1 9 9 2 2 2 2 5 5 7 7 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

PAGE 369

369 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% no de coration s ing le a ppliqu line single inci s ed l i n e f in ge r na il/stic k c r e sc e nt inci s e d hor iz o ntal an d z igza g l ine s mu lt iple a ppliqu li n e s mu lt iple incis e d lines mu lt iple gr o ove d line s incised horizontal lines on rim and zigzag lin e appliqu circle finge r pinc h in line diste insera mitad j ebena C Figure 6-11 Continued 3 3 6 6 1 1 7 7 4 4 3 3 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

PAGE 370

370 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% no decorationsingle appliqu lineincised horizontal and vertical lines multiple appliqu lines diste insera mita d D Figure 6-11 Continued 7 7 8 8 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1

PAGE 371

371 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% n o d e c o r a t i o n s i n g l e a p p l i q u l i n e s i n g l e i n c i s e d l i n e i n c i s e d h o r i z o n t a l a n d v e r t i c a l l i n e s m u l t i p l e a p pl i q u l i n e s m u l t i p l e i n c i s e d l i n e s m u l t i p l e g r o o v e d l i n e s f i n g e r i m p r e s s i o n s o n a p p l i q u l i n e f i n g e r i m p re s s i o n s p a i n t o n p o r c e l a i n h o r i z o n t a l l i n e a p p l i q u e h o r i z o n t a l a n d i n c i s e d v w i t h l i n e s f i n g e r p i n c h a n d f i n g e r n a i l c r e s c e n t s i n c i s e d v w i t h l i n e s diste insera mita d E Figure 6-11 Continued 1 1 3 3 2 2 9 9 3 3 7 7 5 5 2 2 5 5 1 1 3 3 7 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 6 6 1 1

PAGE 372

372 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% no decorationmultiple appliqu lines diste insera mitad F Figure 6-11 Continued 1 1 0 0 5 5 3 3 1 1

PAGE 373

373 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% a p p l i q u l u g g r o o v e d w a v y l i n e m u l t i p l e a p p l i q u l i n e s m u l t i p le g r o o v e d l i n e s m u l ti p l e i n c i s e d li n e s s i n g l e a p pl i q u l i n e s i n g l e i n c i s e d l i n e i n c i s e d z i g z a g l i n e s i n g l e g r o o v e d l i n e f i n g e r n a i l / s t i c k c r e s c e n t m u l t i c o m p on e n t d e c o r a t i o n s LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L5 LS-L7 Decorative Type LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L5 LS-L7 N % N % N % N % N % appliqu lug 15.6% 14.3% grooved wavy line 15.6% finger pinch in horizontal line and finger impressions 15.6% multiple appliqu lines 15.6%313.6% 1100.0% multiple grooved lines 422.2%313.6% multiple incised lines 316.7%14.5%521.7% single appliqu line 738.9%940.9%834.8%2 100.0% incised horizontal and vertical lines 29.1% incised horizontal and zigzag lines 14.5%313.0% incised zigzag line 29.1% single grooved line 14.5% fingernail/stick crescent 14.3% incised horizontal and v-overlap lines 14.3% incised horizontal lines on rim and diagonal lines 14.3% incised wavy line on appliqu 14.3% single incised line 28.7% A Figure 6-12 Unit A2: changes in decoration types over time. A) Changes in specific decorative type frequencies, B) Changes in number of d ecorative types present, C) Changes in undecorated pottery frequencies

PAGE 374

374 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LS-L1LS-L2LS-L3LS-L4LS-L5LS-L6LS-L7 # of decorative types B 83.8% 76.8% 61.7% 0.0% 60.0% 0.0% 80.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% LS-L1LS-L2LS-L3LS-L4LS-L5LS-L6LS-L7 no decoration C Figure 6-12 Continued

PAGE 375

375 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% LS-L1LS-L2LS-L3LS-L3aLS-L4LS-L5 interior and exterior slip interior and exterior burnish interior burnish/exterior slip interior plain/exterior slip interior slip/exterior burnish interior slip/exterior plain interior slip/exterior smooth interior smooth/exterior slip interior smooth/exterior burnish Figure 6-13 Unit C4: changes in surface treatment over time

PAGE 376

376 A B C D E F Figure 6-14 Decorative types from unit C4. A) Incised horizontal and zigzag lines on rim; B) appliqu lugs; C) Finger pinch on appliqu line; D) Incised vert ical and wavy lines; E) Incised criss-cross lines; F) Incised horizontal line and concentric U on rim

PAGE 377

377 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% s i n g l e a p p l i n e m u l t i p l e i n c i s e d l i n e s m u l t i p l e a p p l i n e s m u l t i n c i s e d l i n e s o n r i m l u g s i n g l e i n c i s e d l i ne s i n g l e g r o o v e d l i n e m u l t i p l e g r o o v e d l i n e s f i n g e r i m p r e s s i o n s f i n g e r n a i l c r e s c e n t m u l t i c o m p o n e n t d e c o r at i o n s LS-L1 % LS-L2 % LS-L3 % LS-L3a % LS-L4 % Decorative Type LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L3a LS-L4 N % N % N % N % N % single appliqu line 1047.6%2443.6%426.7%6 31.6% 233.3%multiple incised lines 419.0%47.3%320.0%4 21.1% 116.7%multiple appliqu lines 29.5%712.7%213.3%4 21.1% incised horizontal and zigzag lines 14.8%59.1%213.3% multiple incised lines on rim 16.7%3 15.8% 116.7%lug 16.7% 116.7%single incised line 23.6%16.7% multiple incised horizontal and zigzag line on rim 47.3% 1 5.3% single grooved line 14.8% finger impression on appliqu line 29.5% incised horizontal and diagonal lines 14.8% multiple grooved lines 47.3% appliqu horizontal and grooved diagonal lines 11.8% appliqu and incised zigzag line 11.8% finger impressions 23.6% fingernail crescent 11.8% incised vertical and wavy lines 16.7% multiple incised horizontal lines and concentric U 1 5.3% finger pinch and impressions 116.7% A Figure 6-15 Unit C4: changes in decoration type over time. A) Changes in specific decorative type frequencies, B) Changes in number of d ecorative types present, C) Changes in undecorated pottery frequencies

PAGE 378

378 7 11 8 6 5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 LS-L1LS-L2LS-L3LS-L3aLS-L4 # decorative types B 80.6% 74.4% 72.2% 57.8% 77.8% 100.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% LS-L1LS-L2LS-L3LS-L3aLS-L4LS-L5 no decoration C Figure 6-15 Continued

PAGE 379

379 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% LS-L1LS-L2LS-L3LS-L4LS-L5 interior and exterior burnish interior and exterior slip interior and exterior slip and burnish interior and exterior plain interior and exterior smoothing interior burnish/exterior slip interior burnish/exterior smooth interior plain/exterior burnish interior plain/exterior slip interior plain/exterior smooth interior slip/exterior burnish interior slip/exterior smooth interior slip/exterior plain interior smooth/exterior burnish interior smooth/exterior slip Figure 6-16 Unit J3: Changes in surface treatment over time

PAGE 380

380 A B C D Figure 6-17 Decoration types in un it J3. A) Grooved lines; B) Incised horizonta l and v-overlap lines; C) appliqu lines on vessel neck; D) appliqu line and incised wavy lines

PAGE 381

381 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% s i n g l e a p p l i n e m u l t i p l e a p p l i n e s s i n g l e i n c i s e d l i n e m u l t i p l e i n c i s e d l i n e s i n c i s e d z i g z a g l i n e s s i n g l e g r o o v e d l i n e m u l t i p l e g r o o v e d l i n e s a p p l i q u c i r c l e f i n g e r n a i l c r e s c e n t h o r i z on t a l r i d g e m u l t i c o m p o n e n t d e c o r a t i o n s LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L4 Decorative Type LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L4 N%N%N% N % single appliqu line 1144.0%133.3%1339.4% 21 30.9% multiple appliqu lines 416.0% 618.2% 10 14.7% single incised line 28.0% 2 2.9% multiple incised lines 28.0%266.7%515.2% 21 30.9% incised horizontal and zigzag lines 14.0% 412.1% 3 4.4% multiple incised horizontal lines on rim 13.0% 1 1.5% incised horizontal and diagonal lines 14.0% 1 1.5% incised horizontal and v-overlap lines 1 1.5% incised zigzag lines 1 1.5% single grooved line 14.0% 26.1% multiple grooved lines 13.0% 3 4.4% appliqu circle 1 1.5% fingernail crescent 13.0% finger pinch and finger impressions 28.0% 2 2.9% horizontal ridge 14.0% incised wavy and appliqu line 1 1.5% A Figure 6-18 Unit J3: changes in d ecoration over time. A) Changes in specific decorative type frequencies, B) Changes in number of decora tive types present, C) Changes in undecorated pottery frequencies

PAGE 382

382 9 2 8 13 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 LS-L1LS-L2LS-L3LS-L4 # decorative types B 75.0% 90.0% 86.3% 70.7% 100.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% LS-L1LS-L2LS-L3LS-L4LS-L5 no decoration C Figure 6-18 Continued

PAGE 383

383 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% LS-L1LS-L2LS-L3LS-L4 interior and exterior burnish interior and exterior slip interior and exterior smoothing interior burnish/exterior slip interior burnish/exterior smooth interior slip/exterior burnish interior slip/exterior smooth interior smooth/exterior slip Figure 6-19 Unit J8: changes in surface treatment over time A B Figure 6-20 Decorative types from unit J8. A) Incised vertical and diagonal li nes; B) Grooved lines

PAGE 384

384 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% LS-L1LS-L2LS-L3LS-L4LS-L4aLS-L5LS-L6 interior and exterior slip interior and exterior burnish interior slip/exterior burnish interior burnish/exterior slip interior smooth/exterior burnish interior smooth/exterior slip interior slip/exterior polish porcelain glaze Figure 6-21 Unit F7G7: changes in surface treatment over time

PAGE 385

385 A B C D E F Figure 6-22 Decorative types from unit F7G 7. A) Incised horizontal and wavy lines; B) Finger/stick impressions and appliqu; C) Incise d horizontal lines on rim; D) Incised wavy lines; E) Appliqu lines on neck and throat; F) Punctate triangle

PAGE 386

386 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% s i n g l e i n c i s e d l i n e s i n g l e a p p l i q u l i n e a p p l i q u l u g s i n g l e g r o o v e d l i n e m u l t i p l e a p p l i q u l i n e s m u l t i p l e g r o o v e d l i n e s m u l t i p l e i n c i s e d l i n e s g r o o v e d w a v y l i n e f i n g e r i m p r e s s i o n s f i n g e r n a i l c r e s c e n t i n c i s e d c o n c e n t r i c U i n c i s e d c r i s s c r o s s l i n e s i nc i s e d v w i t h l i n e s a p p l i q u w a v y l i n e p u n c t a t e t r i a n g l e m u l t i c o m p o n e n t d e c o r a t i o n s LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L4 LS-L4a LS-L5 LS-L6 A Figure 6-23 Changes in unit F7G7 decoration over ti me. A) Changes in specific decorative type frequencies, B) Changes in number of decora tive types present, C) Changes in undecorated pottery frequencies

PAGE 387

387Decorative Type LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L4 LS-L4a LS-L5 LS-L6 N % N % N % N % N % N % N % single incised line 3 1.4%10.9%17.7% 1 25.0% single appliqu line 74 33.5%37 32.2%323.1%18.3% 116.7%350.0% appliqu lug 2 0.9%54.3%215.4% single grooved line 12 5.4%10.9%17.7% multiple appliqu lines 27 12.2%16 13.9%323.1%216.7% 2 50.0%116.7% multiple grooved lines 53 24.0%11 9.6% 18.3% 116.7% multiple incised lines 15 6.8%26 22.6% 541.7% 350.0%116.7% grooved wavy line 1 0.5% finger impressions 2 0.9%10.9% fingernail crescent 2 0.9% 18.3% finger impressions on appliqu line 1 0.5%10.9% incised concentric U 1 0.5% incised horizontal and zigzag lines 9 4.1%76.1%215.4% 1 25.0% 116.7% incised horizontal and vertical lines 3 1.4%10.9% incised horizontal and v with lines 1 0.5% appliqu horizontal and incised v with lines 2 0.9% appliqu horizontal and incised diagonal lines 2 0.9% appliqu vertical and horizontal lines 1 0.5%10.9% lug and incised lines 1 0.5% finger pinch and fingernail crescents 4 1.8% finger pinch in horizontal line and finger impressions 3 1.4% 17.7% Figure 6-23A Continued

PAGE 388

388Decorative Type LS-L1 LS-L2 LS-L3 LS-L4 LS-L4a LS-L5 LS-L6 N % N % N % N N % N % N % incised horizontal lines on rim and concentric U 1 0.5% 18.3% incised criss-cross lines 1 0.5% incised v with lines 10.9% incised horizontal lines and punctate circles 10.9% incised diagonal and uid lines 10.9% appliqu horizontal and incised diagonal lines 10.9% appliqu horizontal and grooved vertical lines 10.9% appliqu wavy line 10.9% incised horizontal lines on rim and diagonal lines 10.9% incised horizontal and wavy lines 18.3% punctate triangle 116.7% Figure 6-23 A Continued

PAGE 389

389 23 19 7 7 3 4 4 0 5 10 15 20 25 LS-L1LS-L2LS-L3LS-L4LS-L4aLS-L5LS-L6 # decorative types B 61.8% 75.3% 78.0% 51.7% 78.9% 71.4% 84.2% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% LS-L1LS-L2LS-L3LS-L4LS-L4aLS-L5LS-L6 no decoration C Figure 6-23 Continued

PAGE 390

390 inseradistemitad vessel type 0 10 20 30 40 50sherd thickness (mm) unit A2 C4 F7G7 G7-N J3 J8 Figure 6-24 Sherd thickness ranges by unit

PAGE 391

391 inseradistemitad vessel type 0 10 20 30 40 50rim diameter (cm) unit A2 C4 F7G7 G7-N J3 J8 Figure 6-25 Rim diameter ranges by unit

PAGE 392

392 Figure 6-26 Unit G7-North: stamping on pottery A B Figure 6-27 Unidentified sherd types from A) unit A2; B) unit F7G7

PAGE 393

393 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND DIRECTIO NS 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 lifewa ys of the Beta Israel living in the area; more, this study aimed to look at how the Gonder Beta Is rael – as active players in the formations of their own ideologies – responded to the changing social, economi c, and political contexts of 17th and 18th-century Gonder. Through a combination of historical, archaeologi cal 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 Giorgi s site is the overall constancy in pottery manufacturing and decorating techniques, both spa tially and temporally. Add to this the women from the greater Gonder area who we re interviewed, and we are left with a practice that, except for minor variations that have b een shown to correspond to specific villages – or in the case of the archaeological materials, specific residentia l units – has not changed much. Beta Israel women today are making pottery that is virtua lly indistinguishable fr om the pottery their ancestors made. While I cannot speak to Beta Isr ael 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 attemp ts 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 characteris tics were observed among the nine potters who

PAGE 394

394 came from throughout the Gonder area and were neither related to each other or to the occupants of Abwara Giorgis belies the idea that similaritie s in pottery manufacture ar e a result of kinship networks. We may just be l ooking at a style of pottery manu facture and decoration that is characteristic of the Beta Israel or of north ern 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-re aching methods of cultural transmission such as trade. Thus I cannot say that pottery manufacture or decora tion techniques are necessarily diagnostic of family or household, or even vill age units. A broader sitewide perspective is necessary to address this question. Change over Time The major contribution of this research has been to demonstrate a sitewide increase in the range of pottery manufacturing techniques, deco ration, 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 major ways: first, a significant increase in th e 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, a nd decoration. These two shifts occurred concurrently; in every unit, the amount of pottery rec overed increased by over 200% in the upper levels (or middle, in th e case of J3), and the increases were accompanied by a greater variety of production techni ques (see Chapter 6). The depth at which this shift occurs varies in each unit, appeari ng at between 273-376 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.

PAGE 395

395 the northwest end. The bedrock then, is nearly one meter lowe r in the northwesternmost unit (J8) than it is in the southeaste rnmost 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 a nd the overall topography of the site, it appears entirely possible that the increase and diversifi cation of pottery occurred at approximately the same time throughout the units. Taken togeth er, 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 char acterized by strong centralization; the various emperors represented not only the political ap ex of society, but the economic and social apices as well, as evidenced by the diversified labor av ailable to the various ethnic groups during that period, a nd by the physical landscape of Gonde r. 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 whic h the pottery is both less a bundant and more stylistically homogenous, exhibit exactly the sort of smaller-s cale pottery production we would expect to see at a Beta Israel village during th e 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, wa s characterized by political, economic and social decentralization, during which no single pe rson 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 dest abilization of Gonder soci ety, both politically and

PAGE 396

396 economically. Out of this context emerged a more widely diversified societ y that did not exhibit the pyramidal hierarchy of status so representative of the Gonder Era. Here is where this research makes its majo r contribution to the st udy 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. Ce rtainly the intensification of pottery production during this period supports the proposition of many historians (Kaplan 1992, Quirin 1978, 1992) that during the Er a of the Princes the Gonder Be ta 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 be gan 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 poi nt there was a la rge-scale (that is, beyond the individual or single family leve l) move towards pottery intensification and diversification that may well have been a re sponse 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 th eir pottery techniques to meet the demands of Gonder’s newly decentralized so ciety. This is a valuable example of the complementary way in which history and archaeo logy may operate; rather than confirming or

PAGE 397

397 denying the historical argument s, this study has provided a new dimension, which supplements the overall robusticity of our knowledge of Gonder Beta Is rael lifeways during the 17th and 18th centuries. Implications of this Study: Historical Archaeology Historical archaeology as a di scipline has long been considered a supplemental discipline of history, “history’s handmaiden” (Nol Hume 1964), in which the goals of these studies seemed to be limited to either pr oving or disproving the veracity of historical records. This was the dominant model for early forays into historic al 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, Orse r 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; Lightf oot 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; Stah l 2001, 2004; Wylie 1995), in which historical archaeology in general, and in Africa in pa rticular, 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 join the ra nks of this “new” historical archaeology. As mentioned, this research has pres ented 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 st udy of a marginalized group can add to more complete knowledge of how such groups might respond to increasing in teraction with the dominant group by becoming actively integrated in one or more spheres of society. The emphasis on the agency and praxis of the s ubmerged group is one area which traditional

PAGE 398

398 historical archaeologies have t ypically overlooked, and is one of the characteristics of the new generation of historical archaeology (see fo r example DeCorse 2001; Schmidt and Patterson 1995). In this case, it ap pears that the Beta Isra el may have elected to embed themselves within the economic spheres of Gonder society by stri ving 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 subm erged group may manipulate their physical and cultural surroundings to sust ain 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 integrat ion, although the shift in pottery frequency and diversity across the excavated units does suggest th is 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. Fu ture 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 technol ogical choices; the func tional 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 s ites in other parts of the country, is necessary. A more complete potte ry assemblage is required before the major questions regarding identity and in tegration through material culture can be addressed in detail;

PAGE 399

399 however, this study has hopefully laid the ground work for future studies of Beta Israel archaeology and the historical archaeology of northwestern Ethiopia in general.

PAGE 400

400 APPENDIX A AG TEST SITE #1 BAG CATALOG Point # X coord Y coord Date ExcavatorContents 0 0 0 16/2/04BG/M charcoal, metal, 16 5 0 16/2/04BG/M charcoal, 57 0 5 16/2/04Melaku charcoal, metal, 64 5 5 16/2/04Melaku charcoal, metal, 70 35 5 16/2/04Melaku bone, 58 0 10 16/2/04TZ charcoal, 71 5 10 16/2/04TZ charcoal, clay, 73 15 10 16/2/04TZ bone, charcoal, clay, 74 20 10 16/2/04TZ metal, bone, charcoal, house center 20-25 10 16/2/04TZ charcoal, 79 5 15 17/2/04BG/M charcoal, 60 0 20 17/2/04Melaku bone, clay, 86 5 20 17/2/04Melaku bone, glass, 88 15 20 17/2/04Melaku charcoal, stone 61 0 15 17/2/04TZ charcoal, glass, 83 25 15 17/2/04BG/M metal, 104 -10 0 18/2/04TZ glass, 105 -15 0 18/2/04Melaku charcoal, 106 -5 5 18/2/04BG/M charcoal, 117 -10 25 18/2/04TZ charcoal, metal, glass, 118 -10 30 18/2/04Melaku charcoal, 123 -15 20 18/2/04Melaku charcoal, ** all other shovel tests contained no artifacts (total 63 st's completed)

PAGE 401

401 APPENDIX B TEMPORARY DATUM ELEVATIONS Datum Name meters above permanent datum 4.046 T2 4.381 T3 3.394 T4 3.284 T5 4.612 1 4.661 5 4.319

PAGE 402

402 APPENDIX C AG 2004 BAG CATALOG Bag # Unit Level DateExcavator Contents 1 B1 surface 2/3/04T/M pottery, 2 C1 surface 2/3/04NM/AW pottery, glass, 3 D1 surface 2/3/04T/M pottery, glass, 4 A2 surface 2/3/04NM/AW pottery, glass, 5 E1 surface 2/3/04T/M pottery, bone, 1/2 bead 6 B2 surface 2/3/04NM/AW pottery, 7 C2 surface 2/3/04T/M pottery, 8 E2 surface 2/3/04NM/AW pottery, 9 D2 surface 2/3/04NM/AW pottery, 10 E3 surface 2/3/04T/M pottery, 11 D3 surface 2/3/04NM/AW pottery, 12 A5 surface 2/3/04NM/AW pottery, 13 C5 surface 2/3/04T/M pottery, 14 B5 surface 2/3/04NM/AW pottery, 15 J4 surface 2/3/04NM/AW pottery, glass, 16 J5 surface 2/3/04T/M pottery, 17 A3 surface 2/3/04T/M pottery, 18 E4 surface 2/3/04T/M pottery, bone 19 H5 surface 2/3/04NM/AW pottery, bone, 20 A4 surface 2/3/04NM/AW pottery, bone, 21 B4 surface 2/3/04T/M pottery, bone, 22 C4 surface 2/3/04NM/AW pottery,gulicha (firing rocks) 23 C3 surface 2/3/04T/M pottery, 24 H4 surface 2/3/04T/M pottery, glass, 25 G5 surface 2/3/04NM/AW pottery, glass, slag, 26 B3 surface 2/3/04T/M pottery, glass, 27 H3 surface 2/3/04NM/AW pottery, glass, metal ring 28 F5 surface 2/3/04T/M pottery, glass 29 F3 surface 2/3/04NM/AW pottery, glass 30 G3 surface 2/3/04T/M pottery, glass 31 I3 surface 2/3/04T/M pottery, glass 32 J3 surface 2/3/04NM/AW pottery, glass 33 F4 surface 2/3/04T/M pottery, glass 34 I5 surface 2/3/04NM/AW pottery, glass 35 D4 surface 2/3/04T/M pottery, glass 36 G4 surface 2/3/04NM/AW pottery, glass 37 E5 surface 2/3/04NM/AW pottery, glass 38 I4 surface 2/3/04T/M pottery, glass 39 D5 surface 2/3/04NM/AW pottery, glass 40 A6 surface 3/3/04TZ pottery, glass 41 B6 surface 3/3/04AW pottery, glass

PAGE 403

403 42 C6 surface 3/3/04MG pottery, 43 D6 surface 3/3/04NM pottery, bone, 44 E6 surface 3/3/04TZ pottery, 45 F6 surface 3/3/04AW pottery, 46 G6 surface 3/3/04TZ pottery, clay, slag, 47 H6 surface 3/3/04NM pottery, slag, 48 I6 surface 3/3/04TZ pottery, bone, 49 J6 surface 3/3/04NM pottery, 50 A7 surface 3/3/04MG pottery, 51 B7 surface 3/3/04AW pottery, 52 C7 surface 3/3/04TZ pottery, 53 D7 surface 3/3/04MG pottery, 54 E7 surface 3/3/04AW pottery, 55 F7 surface 3/3/04TZ pottery, slag, bone, 56 G7 surface 3/3/04NM pottery, clay, slag, 57 H7 surface 3/3/04TZ pottery, bone, 58 I7 surface 3/3/04AW pottery, 59 J7 surface 3/3/04MG pottery, 60 A8 surface 3/3/04NM pottery, 61 B8 surface 3/3/04TZ pottery, 62 I8 surface 3/3/04NM pottery, glass, 63 C8 surface 3/3/04MG pottery, 64 D8 surface 3/3/04AW pottery, glass, 65 E8 surface 3/3/04NM pottery, 66 F8 surface 3/3/04TZ pottery, clay, slag, 67 G8 surface 3/3/04AW pottery, clay, slag, 68 H8 surface 3/3/04NM pottery, bone, slag, 69 J8 surface 3/3/04MG pottery, 70 A9 surface 3/3/04AW pottery, 71 B9 surface 3/3/04NM pottery, 72 C9 surface 3/3/04MG pottery, 73 D9 surface 3/3/04TZ pottery, bone, 74 E9 surface 3/3/04MG pottery, 75 F9 surface 3/3/04AW pottery, slag, 76 G9 surface 3/3/04NM pottery, slag, 77 A10 surface 3/3/04NM pottery, 78 B10 surface 3/3/04TZ pottery, 79 C10 surface 3/3/04MG pottery, 80 D10 surface 3/3/04NM pottery, 81 E10 surface 3/3/04AW pottery, 82 F10 surface 3/3/04TZ pottery, 83 G10 surface 3/3/04NM pottery, 84 A11 surface 3/3/04MG pottery, 85 B11 surface 3/3/04TZ pottery, 86 C11 surface 3/3/04AW pottery, bone, 87 D11 surface 3/3/04NM pottery, bone,

PAGE 404

404 88 E11 surface 3/3/04MG pottery, bone, 89 F11 surface 3/3/04TZ pottery, bone, 90 G11 surface 3/3/04AW pottery, bone, 91 A12 surface 3/3/04NM pottery, bone, 92 B12 surface 3/3/04MG pottery, bone, 93 C12 surface 3/3/04TZ pottery, 94 D12 surface 3/3/04AW pottery, 95 E12 surface 3/3/04TZ pottery, 96 F12 surface 3/3/04MG pottery, 97 G12 surface 3/3/04NM pottery, 98 A13 surface 3/3/04AW pottery, 99 B13 surface 3/3/04TZ pottery, 100 C13 surface 3/3/04NM pottery, 101 D13 surface 3/3/04MG pottery, 102 E13 surface 3/3/04AW pottery, bone, 103 F13 surface 3/3/04NM pottery, bone, 104 G13 surface 3/3/04TZ pottery, 105 G7 1 5/3/04RK.TZ.NM pottery, clay, slag, bone, metal, glass, charcoal, bead 106 F7 1 5/3/04RK.TZ.NM pottery, clay, slag, charcoal, metal, bone, bead 107 F8 1 6/3/04RK.TZ.NMpottery, charcoal, slag, metal, bone, clay, 108 G8 1 9/3/04RK.TZ.NMpottery, bone, clay, slag, 109 H7 1 9/3/04KB,RK pottery, slag, tooth,clay, 110 H7 2 9/3/04KB,RK pottery, slag, bone, glass, 111 G7 2 9/3/04BG/MNM pottery, slag, clay, 112 G7 3 10/3/04BG/MNM potte ry, slag, bone, clay, tooth 113 G7 4 10/3/04BG/MNM pottery, slag, charcoal, bone, 114 H7 3 10/3/04KB,RK pottery, glass, charcoal, bone, slag, 115 G7 5 10/3/04BG/MNM potte ry, bone, charcoal, slag, 116 H7 4 11/3/04KB,RK pottery, bon e, slag, charcoal, glass, 117 H7 2-4 11/3/04KB,RK pottery, 118 G7 6 11/3/04NM, TZ pottery, charcoal, slag, clay, teeth 119 G8 2 12/3/04NM, TZ pottery, slag, charcoal, clay, 120 G8 3 12/3/04NM, TZ pottery, bone, slag, charcoal, glass, clay, bead 121 G8 4 13/3/04NM, TZ pottery, bon e, charcoal, slag, glass, 122 H8 1 15/3/04YA, RK pottery, 123 F7 2 15/3/04NM, YA pottery, charcoal, slag, bone, metal, clay, 124 F8 2 15/3/04AW, MT pottery, charcoal, slag, bone, 125 F8 3 15/3/04AW, MT pottery, charcoal, slag, bone, bead 126 F8 4 16/3/04AW, MT pottery, slag, charcoal, 127 F8 5 16/3/04AW, MT pottery, bone, charcoal, slag, teeth 128 F6 1 16/3/04NM, YA pottery, slag, bone, metal, charcoal, glass, tooth 129 F8 5 16/3/04AW, MT pottery,

PAGE 405

405 130 F8 6 17/3/04AW, MT pottery, charcoal, bone, slag, bead 131 F8 1-4 17/3/04AW, MT pottery, 132 F5 1 17/3/04NM, YA pottery, glass, metal, slag, bone, 133 G6 1 17/3/04AW, MT pottery, charcoal, slag, bone, metal, clay, tooth 134 F7-fp 3 17/3/04RK potter y, bone, slag, charcoal, 135 G5 1 18/3/04NM, YA pottery, metal, slag, bone, glass, bead 136 G6 2 18/3/04AW, MT pottery, 137 G6 3 18/3/04AW, MT pottery, slag, bone, clay, 138 F7-fp 4 18/3/04RK pottery, charcoal, bone, slag, 139 F6 2 18/3/04AW, MT pottery, bone, clay, 140 F6 3 19/3/04BG/MAW pottery, charcoal, bone, slag, 141 F7-fp 5 19/3/04RK pottery, bone, 142 F6 4 19/3/04AW, MT pottery, bone, glass, clay, charcoal, 143 G5 2 19/3/04YA, MT pottery, bone, 144 G5 3 19/3/04YA, MT pottery, bone, tooth 145 F6 5 19/3/04AW, MT pottery, ch arcoal, slag, bone, clay, tooth 146 G5 4 19/3/04YA, MT pottery, bone, glass, tooth 147 F5 2 20/3/04AW, MT pottery, 148 F5 3 20/3/04AW, MT pottery, bone, charcoal, glass, tooth 149 G6 4 20/3/04NM, YA pottery, slag, bone, charcoal, metal, 150 F7-fp 6 20/3/04RK pottery, 151 G6 5 20/3/04NM, YA pottery, slag, bone, 152 F5 4 22/3/04AW, MT pottery, metal, bone, slag, glass, 153 G6 6 22/3/04NM, YA pottery, slag, bone, charcoal, tooth 154 F5 5 22/3/04AW, MT pottery, bone, slag, teeth 155 F7 3 22/3/04RK pottery, 156 F7 4 22/3/04RK pottery, bone, 157 G6 7 22/3/04NM, YA pottery, tooth, bone, slag, clay, bead 158 F5 6 22/3/04AW, MT pottery, bone, tooth 159 G6 8 22/3/04NM, YA pottery, bone, slag, charcoal, teeth (bovid) 160 F7 5 22/3/04RK pottery, charcoal, 161 F5 7 23/3/04AW, MT pottery, bone, 162 G6 9 23/3/04NM, YA pottery, bone, slag, glass, tooth? 163 G6 10 23/3/04NM, YA pottery, bone, slag, charcoal, 164 F5 8 23/3/04AW, MT pottery, bone, slag, charcoal, 165 G6 11 23/3/04NM, YA pottery, charcoal, bone, tooth 166 F5 9 23/3/04AW, MT pottery, bone, charcoal, tooth 167 F5 10 23/3/04AW, MT pottery, bone, 168 F8-N 7 23/3/04NM, YA pottery, slag, metal, bone, charcoal, 169 F8-N 8 24/3/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, 170 F5 11 24/3/04MT pottery, bone, charcoal, 171 G8 5 24/3/04NM, YA pottery, bone, metal, charcoal, tooth 172 F6 6 25/3/04AW, MT pottery, slag, bone, 173 F8-S 7 25/3/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, 174 F6 7 25/3/04AW, MT potter y, bone, charcoal, slag,

PAGE 406

406 175 F8-S 8 25/3/04NM, YA pottery, bone, tooth 176 F6 8 25/3/04AW, MT pottery, bone, slag, charcoal, 177 F8-S 9 25/3/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, 178 F6 9 30/3/04AW, MT pottery, bone, charcoal, 179 F8-S 10 30/3/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, 180 F6 10 30/3/04AW, MT pottery, 181 G7-S 7 30/3/04AW, MT pottery, bone, slag, teeth 182 G7-N 7 30/3/04AW, MT pottery, bone, tooth 183 F8-S 11 30/3/04NM, YA pottery, bone, tooth 184 G7-S 8 30/3/04AW, MT potter y, bone, clay, charcoal, teeth 185 F7 6 31/3/04NM, YA pottery, 186 F7 7 31/3/04NM, YA pottery, bone, 187 G7-N 8 31/3/04AW, MT pottery, bone, tooth 188 F7 8 31/3/04NM, YA pottery, bone, 189 G7-S 9 31/3/04AW, MT pottery, charcoal, bone, 190 F7 9 31/3/04NM, YA pottery, bone, tooth 191 G7-N 9 31/3/04AW, MT pottery, 192 G7-S 10 31/3/04NM, YA pottery, bone, teeth 193 F7 10 31/3/04NM, YA pottery, bone, slag, glass, lithic 194 F7 11 31/3/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, 195 G7-N 10 31/3/04AW, MT pottery, 196 G7-S 11 1/4/04AW, MT potte ry, bone, charcoal, tooth 197 F7 12 1/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, tooth 198 F7 13 1/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, 199 G7-N 11 1/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, clay, 200 F7 14 1/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, metal, bead 201 G7-S 12 1/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, metal, clay, bead, coprolite? 202 F7 15 1/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, 203 F7 16 1/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, tooth 204 G7-N 12 1/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, tooth 205 G7 13 2/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, charcoal, 206 F7 17 2/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, tooth 207 F7 18 2/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, clay, slag, tooth 208 G7 14 2/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, coprolite? 209 F7 19 2/4/04NM, YA pottery, slag, bone, glass, charcoal, teeth 210 F7 20 2/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, 211 G7 15 2/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, tooth 212 F7 21 5/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, 213 G7-south wall 10-15 5/4/04AW pottery, 214 G7-north wall 10-15 5/4/04MT pottery, bone, 215 G7-west wall 7-15 5/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, metal, 216 G7 16 5/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, charcoal, tooth 217 F7 22 5/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal,

PAGE 407

407 218 F7-nw corner 11-22 6/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, 219 G8 3-5 6/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, 220 G8 6 6/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, charcoal, tooth 221 F7 23 7/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, lithic 222 F7 ~17-22 7/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, 223 F7 24 7/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, 224 G7 17 7/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, 225 G8 7 8/4/04NM, YA pottery, bon e, charcoal, bead, lithic 226 G7 18 8/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, 227 G7 19 9/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, 228 F7 25 9/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, 229 G7 20 9/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, charcoal, 230 G7-south wall 12-19 9/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, 231 F7 26 9/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, 232 G7 21 9/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, tooth 233 F7 27 10/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, 234 G7-E 22 10/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, charcoal, 235 G7-W 22 12/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, 236 F7 28 12/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, 237 G7-E 23 12/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, 238 F7 29 12/4/04NM, YA pottery, charcoal, 239 G7-W 23 12/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, tooth 240 G7-E 24 13 /4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, 241 F7 30 13 /4/04NM, YA pottery, 242 G7-W 24 13 /4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, 243 F7 31 13 /4/04NM, YA none 244 G7-E 25 13 /4/04AW, MT pottery, 245 F7-rock wall 2-6 13 /4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, calcedony lithic 246 F7-S 7 14/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, 247 F7-S 8 14/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, 248 G7-W 25 14/4/04AW, MT pottery, 249 F7-S 9 14/4/04NM, YA pottery, metal nail 250 G7 26 14/4/04AW, MT pottery, tooth (bovid) 251 F7-S 10 14/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, 252 F7-S 11 14/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, 253 G7 27 14/4/04AW, MT pottery, 254 J3 1 14/4/04AW, MT pottery, glass, metal, bone, slag, 255 F7-S 12 14/4/04NM, YA pottery, metal,

PAGE 408

408 256 F7-S 13 15/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, 257 F7-S 14 15/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, beads 258 J3 2 15/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, glass, 259 F7-S 15 15/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, ochre, 3 beads 260 J3 3 15/4/04AW, MT pottery, glass, bone, metal nail 261 F7-S 16 15/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, tooth 262 F7-S 17-22 15/4/04NM, YA pottery, 263 J3 4 16/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, glass, 264 F7-S 17 16/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, tooth 265 F7-S 18 16/4/04NM, YA pottery, bon e, slag, charcoal, metal ball 266 J3 5 16/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, slag, charcoal, tooth 267 J3 6 16/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, tooth 268 F7-S/SE 15-18 16/4/04NM, YA pottery, charcoal, 2 beads 269 F7-S 19 16/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, 270 J3 7 16/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, glass, 271 F7-S 20 17/4/04NM, YA pottery, charcoal, bone, tooth 272 J3 8 17/4/04AW, MT pottery, slag, bone, 273 F7-S 21 17/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, tooth 274 J3 9 17/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, 275 F7-S 22 19/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, 276 J3 10 19/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, cylindrical charcoal (?) 277 J3 11 19/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, 278 F7-S 23 19/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, metal, charcoal, bead 279 J3 12 19/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, 280 J3 13 19/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, 281 F7-S 24 19/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, bead 282 J3 14 20/4/04AW, MT potte ry, bone, charcoal, bead 283 J3 15 20/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, glass, 284 F7-S 25 20/4/04NM, YA pottery, slag, charcoal, 285 J3 16 20/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, 286 J3 17 20/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, charcoal, 287 F7-S 26 26/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, 288 J3 18 26/4/04AW, MT pottery, charcoal, 289 F7-S 27 26/4/04NM, YA none 290 J3 19 26/4/04AW, MT pottery, 291 F7-S 28 26/4/04NM, YA pottery, 292 F7-S 29 27/4/04NM, YA pottery, 293 J3 20 27/4/04AW, MT none 294 A2 1 27/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, shell, glass, metal, 295 J8 1 27/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, metal, glass, clay, beads 296 J3-east wall 1-10 27/4/04RK pottery, 297 G7-north wall all 28/4/04RK pottery, 298 A2 2 28/4/04AW, MT potte ry, bone, charcoal, seed? 299 J8 2 28/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, metal, glass, charcoal, tooth

PAGE 409

409 300 F7-east wall all 28/4/04RK pottery, 301 A2 3 28/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, charcoal, glass, tooth 302 A2 4 28/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, metal, charcoal, alelo rock 303 J8 3 28/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, lithic 304 J8 4 28/4/04NM, YA pottery, charcoal, 305 J8-east wall 1-4 28/4/04NM, YA pottery, 306 J8 5 29/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, 307 A2 5 29/4/04AW, MT potte ry, bone, charcoal, seed? 308 J8-south wall 1-5 29/4/04NM, YA pottery, 309 J8 6 29/4/04NM, YA pottery, charcoal, bone, bead 310 A2 6 29/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, charcoal, tooth 311 J8 6 29/4/04NM, YA pottery, metal hair ornament 312 J8 7 29/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, beads 313 A2 7 29/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, slag, 314 J8-E 8 30/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, teeth 315 A2 8 30/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, charcoal, 316 J8-SE 9 30/4/04NM, YA pottery, 317 J8-NE 9 30/4/04NM, YA pottery, 318 J8 8 30/4/04NM, YA pottery, bone, metal, clay, tooth 319 A2 9 30/4/04AW, MT pottery, bone, 320 A2 10 30/4/04AW, MT potte ry, bone, charcoal, seed? 321 J8 9 3/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, 322 A2 11 3/5/04AW, MT pottery, bone, 323 J8-NE 10 3/5/04NM, YA pottery, 324 J8-NW 10 3/5/04AW, MT pottery, 325 A2-NW 11 3/5/04MT pottery, bone, 326 J8 10 3/5/04NM, YA pottery, 327 A2 12 3/5/04MT pottery, bone, glass, 328 J8-NE 11 4/5/04NM, YA pottery, 329 A2-NW 12 4/5/04AW, MT pottery, clay, 330 J8 11 4/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, 331 A2 13 4/5/04AW, MT pottery, bone, 332 A2-NW 13 4/5/04AW, MT pottery, 333 A2-W 14 4/5/04AW, MT pottery, charcoal, 334 J8-NE 12 4/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, metal blade, lithic 335 A2-E 14 4/5/04AW, MT pottery, bone, charcoal, 336 J8 12 4/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, 337 A2-W 15 4/5/04AW, MT none 338 A2-E 15 4/5/04AW, MT pottery, bone, 339 J8-NE 13 5/5/04NM, YA pottery, 340 J8 13 5/5/04NM, YA none 341 A2 16 5/5/04MT pottery, charcoal, bone, 342 A2 17 5/5/04AW, MT pottery, bone, charcoal, teeth

PAGE 410

410 343 J8-NE 14 5/5/04NM, YA pottery, metal ball 344 J8 14 5/5/04NM, YA none 345 A2 18 5/5/04AW, MT pottery, bone, charcoal, teeth 346 J8 15 5/5/04NM, YA pottery, 347 J8 16 6/5/04NM, YA pottery, 348 A2 19 6/5/04AW, MT pottery, bone, 349 J8 17 6/5/04NM, YA pottery, charcoal, 350 J8 18 6/5/04NM, YA pottery, 351 C4 1 6/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, 352 A2 20 6/5/04AW, MT pottery, bone, 353 A2 17-20 6/5/04AW, MT pottery, bone, 354 A2 20-21 6/5/04AW, MT bone 355 A2 21 6/5/04AW, MT pottery, bone, charcoal, tooth 356 C4 2 7/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, bead 357 C4 3 7/5/04NM, YA pottery, bon e, glass, charcoal, tooth 358 A2-north wall 1-21 7/5/04AW, MT pottery, bone, metal, 359 A2-south wall 1-21 7/5/04AW, MT pottery, bone, 360 A2-east wall 1-21 7/5/04AW, MT pottery, bone, glass, charcoal, seed? 361 A2 22 10/5/04AW, MT pottery, 362 C4 4 10/5/04NM, YA pottery, charcoal, bone, bead, glass tool?, metal, slag, 363 C4 5 10/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, glass, charcoal, 364 A2-west wall 1-22 10/5/04AW, MT pottery, slag, bone, clay, 365 C4 6 10/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, glass, charcoal, 366 A2 23 10/5/04AW, MT pottery, 367 C4 7 11/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, tooth 368 C4-NE 1 11/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, 369 A2 24 11/5/04AW, MT pottery, 370 C4 8 11/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, 371 C4 9 11/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, clay, charcoal 372 C4 10 12/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, glass, charcoal, bead, tooth, seed? 373 A2 25 12/5/04AW, MT pottery, bone, 374 C4 4-10 12/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, 375 C4 11 12/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, tooth 376 C4 12 12/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, glass, 377 C4-north wall 1-12 13/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, 378 C4 13 13/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, clay, charcoal, stone 379 A2 26 13/5/04AW, MT none 380 C4-N 14 13/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, 381 C4-S 14 14/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, tooth

PAGE 411

411 382 F7-S 30 14/5/04AW, MT none 383 C4-N 15 14/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, 384 C4-S 15 14/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, tooth 385 A2-SW 21-26 14/5/04AW, MT pottery, 386 C4-N 16 17/5/04NM, YA pottery, bon e, clay, charcoal, metal nail 387 C4-S 16 17/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, 388 C4-N-ash 17 17/5/04NM, YA pottery, charcoal, 389 C4-N 17 17/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, slag, 390 C4-S 17 17/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, 391 C4-SE 18 17/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, 392 C4 18 17/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, 393 C4 19 18/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, 394 C4 20 18/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, 395 C4-NW 21 18/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, 396 C4 21 18/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, 397 C4-NW 22 19/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, charcoal, 398 C4 22 19/5/04NM, YA pottery, charcoal, bone, stone 399 C4 23 19/5/04NM, YA pottery, bone, 400 C4 24 20/5/04NM, YA pottery, 401 C4 25 20/5/04NM, YA pottery, 402 C4 26 21/5/04NM, YA none

PAGE 412

412 APPENDIX D FAUNAL CATALOG, AG 2004 Identified Faunal Remains Bag Unit Level Taxa Bones NRWeight (g) Unit A2 299 A2 1 Bos taurus Teeth 12 299 A2 1 Bos taurus Metacarpal 125 299 A2 1 Bos taurus Rib 17 301 A2 1 Bos taurus Teeth 114 320 A2 1 Bos taurus Tibia 118 325 A2 1 Bos taurus Tarsal 17 299 A2 1 caprinae Femur 11 301 A2 1 caprinae Humerus 124 322 A2 1 caprinae Femur 13 315 A2 2 Bos taurus Vertebrae 38 310 A2 2 caprinae Teeth 12 319 A2 3 Bos taurus Tibia 19 319 A2 3 Bos taurus Tarsal 11 319 A2 3 Bos taurus Tarsal 144 342 A2 6 Bos taurus Teeth 119 345 A2 6 Bos taurus Teeth 13 345 A2 6 Bos taurus Teeth 110 353 A2 6 Bos taurus Radius 155 355 A2 7 Bos taurus Teeth 13 360 A2 1-7 Bos taurus Vertebrae 112 354 A2 6-7 Bos taurus Scapula 1 151 Total A2 23418 Unit C4 357 C4 1 Bos taurus Femur 12 368 C4 1 Bos taurus Humerus 112 357 C4 1 Bos taurus Teeth 22 357 C4 1 Rodentia Rib 11 370 C4 2 Bos taurus Tibia 148 372 C4 2 Bos taurus Scapula 166 372 C4 2 Bos taurus Pelvis 198 378 C4 2 Bos taurus Vertebrae 13 378 C4 2 Bos taurus Phalanx 13 372 C4 2 caprinae Teeth 22 372 C4 2 caprinae Teeth 11 372 C4 2 caprinae Mandible 11 375 C4 2 caprinae Mandible 11 375 C4 2 caprinae Teeth 11 375 C4 2 caprinae Teeth 11 375 C4 2a Bos taurus Humerus 187 380 C4 3 Bos taurus Pelvis 110

PAGE 413

413 380 C4 3 Bos taurus Femur 114 380 C4 3 Bos taurus Metacarpal 130 383 C4 3 Bos taurus Scapula 18 387 C4 3 Bos taurus Femur 156 383 C4 3 caprinae Metacarpal 112 384 C4 3 caprinae Radius 16 392 C4 3 caprinae Ulna 18 391 C4 3 Rodentia Pelvis 11 386 C4 3a Bos taurus Metacarpal 1118 381 C4 3a caprinae Teeth 13 384 C4 3a caprinae Teeth 13 393 C4 4 Bos taurus Tarsal 133 393 C4 4 caprinae Metatarsal 12 393 C4 4 caprinae Sesamod 1 1 Total C4 33634 Unit F7G7 112 F7G7 1 caprinae Teeth 12 113 F7G7 1 Bos taurus Phalanx 16 113 F7G7 1 caprinae Mandible 11 115 F7G7 1 Bos taurus Radius 125 115 F7G7 1 Bos taurus Carpal 14 115 F7G7 1 Bos taurus Teeth 16 115 F7G7 1 Bos taurus Tibia 162 115 F7G7 1 caprinae Teeth 11 118 F7G7 1 Bos taurus Teeth 12 118 F7G7 1 caprinae Teeth 511 118 F7G7 1 caprinae Teeth 13 118 F7G7 1 caprinae Teeth 47 118 F7G7 1 caprinae Mandible 85 118 F7G7 1 caprinae Vertebrae 11 118 F7G7 1 caprinae Metacarpal 11 181 F7G7 1 Bos taurus Teeth 115 181 F7G7 1 Bos taurus Teeth 16 181 F7G7 1 Bos taurus Teeth 15 181 F7G7 1 caprinae Teeth 1 181 F7G7 1 caprinae Teeth 23 181 F7G7 1 caprinae Mandible 710 181 F7G7 1 caprinae Femur 18 247 F7G7 1 Bos taurus Vertebrae 14 184 F7G7 1 Bos taurus Teeth 12 184 F7G7 1 Bos taurus Rib 222 188 F7G7 1 caprinae Carpal 11 184 F7G7 1 caprinae Humerus 113 184 F7G7 1 caprinae Carpal 11 184 F7G7 1 caprinae Scapula 15

PAGE 414

414 184 F7G7 1 caprinae Teeth 13 184 F7G7 1 caprinae Teeth 12 184 F7G7 1 caprinae Mandible 125 190 F7G7 1 caprinae Teeth 11 190 F7G7 1 Tilapinii Rib 10.5 192 F7G7 1 Bos taurus Tarsal 136 192 F7G7 1 Bos taurus Teeth 113 192 F7G7 1 caprinae Humerus 15 192 F7G7 1 caprinae Teeth 54 192 F7G7 1 caprinae Teeth 321 196 F7G7 1 Bos taurus Tibia 131 196 F7G7 1 Bos taurus Rib 17 196 F7G7 1 caprinae Scapula 16 196 F7G7 1 caprinae Tibia 15 196 F7G7 1 caprinae Tibia 114 197 F7G7 1 Bos taurus Vertebrae 19 197 F7G7 1 Bos taurus Phalanx 112 201 F7G7 1 Bos taurus Vertebrae 16 201 F7G7 1 Bos taurus Humerus 123 197 F7G7 1 caprinae Scapula 11 197 F7G7 1 caprinae Vertebrae 21 197 F7G7 1 caprinae Teeth 11 201 F7G7 1 caprinae Scapula 112 201 F7G7 1 caprinae Humerus 12 198 F7G7 2 Aves sp. Femur 11 198 F7G7 2 Aves sp. Rib 11 256 F7G7 2 Bos taurus Sesamod 11 205 F7G7 2 Bos taurus Pelvis 18 198 F7G7 2 caprinae Femur 14 198 F7G7 2 caprinae Rib 11 208 F7G7 2 caprinae Mandible 124 208 F7G7 2 caprinae Teeth 21 208 F7G7 2 caprinae Ulna 14 259 F7G7 2 Bos taurus Tibia 121 211 F7G7 2 Bos taurus Teeth 19 202 F7G7 2 caprinae Rib 27 211 F7G7 2 caprinae Teeth 11 259 F7G7 2 Equus asinus (donkey) Femur 114 203 F7G7 2 Bos taurus Teeth 24 203 F7G7 2 caprinae Tibia 116 203 F7G7 2 caprinae Radius 11 216 F7G7 2 caprinae Mandible 16 216 F7G7 2 caprinae Scapula 17 203 F7G7 2 Tilapinii Skull 11 206 F7G7 2 Bos taurus Vertebrae 12 206 F7G7 2 Bos taurus Teeth 12

PAGE 415

415 206 F7G7 2 Bos taurus Humerus 126 264 F7G7 2 Bos taurus Teeth 14 206 F7G7 2 caprinae Teeth 11 206 F7G7 2 caprinae Teeth 21 206 F7G7 2 caprinae Rib 12 206 F7G7 2 caprinae Humerus 11 206 F7G7 2 caprinae Carpal 11 206 F7G7 2 caprinae Tarsal 11 264 F7G7 2 caprinae Teeth 12 224 F7G7 2 caprinae Teeth 12 227 F7G7 4 Bos taurus Femur 19 209 F7G7 4 caprinae Mandible 113 227 F7G7 4 caprinae Sternum 11 210 F7G7 4 caprinae Mandible 12 210 F7G7 4 caprinae Skull 11 212 F7G7 4 caprinae Femur 15 212 F7G7 4 caprinae Teeth 11 273 F7G7 4 caprinae Vertebrae 11 273 F7G7 4 caprinae Skull 11 273 F7G7 4 Viverridae Teeth 11 273 F7G7 4 Viverridae Mandible 11 273 F7G7 4 Viverridae Metatarsal 11 217 F7G7 4 caprinae Mandible 12 271 F7G7 4a caprinae Teeth 16 227 F7G7 4a Rodentia Teeth 11 207 F7G7 4a caprinae Skull 11 207 F7G7 4a caprinae Teeth 11 207 F7G7 4a caprinae Pelvis 11 209 F7G7 4a Bos taurus Teeth 110 209 F7G7 4a Bos taurus Phalanx 12 209 F7G7 4a Bos taurus Tibia 121 209 F7G7 4a Bos taurus Metatarsal 134 221 F7G7 5 Bos taurus Tarsal 135 278 F7G7 5 Bos taurus Pelvis 140 221 F7G7 5 caprinae Teeth 14 223 F7G7 6 Bos taurus Tarsal 111 250 F7G7 6 Bos taurus Teeth 118 214 F7G7 1-3 caprinae Vertebrae 1 1 Total F7G7 146278 Unit G7-North 182 G7-N 1 Bos taurus Teeth 14 182 G7-N 1 caprinae Teeth 21 187 G7-N 1 caprinae Teeth 11 187 G7-N 1 caprinae Teeth 12 187 G7-N 1 caprinae Teeth 11

PAGE 416

416 204 G7-N 1 Equus asinus Teeth 1 47 Total G7-N 756 Unit G7-West 239 G7-W 1 Bos taurus Radius 146 239 G7-W 1 Bos taurus Ulna 124 239 G7-W 1 caprinae Metacarpal 1 14 Total G7-W 384 Unit J3 267 J3 3 Bos taurus Scapula 17 267 J3 3 Bos taurus Phalanx 13 267 J3 3 Bos taurus Teeth 18 267 J3 3 Bos taurus Teeth 15 267 J3 3 caprinae Metacarpal 16 270 J3 3 Bos taurus Phalanx 25 270 J3 3 caprinae Radius 11 270 J3 3 caprinae Teeth 12 279 J3 4 caprinae Carpal 11 279 J3 4 caprinae Phalanx 11 282 J3 4 Bos taurus Humerus 19 282 J3 4 caprinae Humerus 12 283 J3 4 Bos taurus Humerus 166 285 J3 4 Bos taurus Skull 18 285 J3 4 Bos taurus Teeth 35 286 J3 4 Bos taurus Humerus 1 50 Total J3 19179 Unit J8 299 J8 1 caprinae Sesamod 11 299 J8 1 caprinae Teeth 14 309 J8 1 Bos taurus Tibia 13 314 J8 1 Bos taurus Teeth 12 314 J8 1 caprinae Mandible 121 318 J8 1 caprinae Radius 125 318 J8 1 caprinae Teeth 1 1 Total J8 757 Partially excavated units 148 F5* 3 caprinae Teeth 11 164 F5 8 caprinae Tibia 16 166 F5 9 caprinae Teeth 11 128 F6 1 Bos taurus Teeth 122 128 F6 1 Bos taurus Teeth 11 145 F6 5 Bos taurus Teeth 29

PAGE 417

417 124 F8 2 Bos taurus Carpal 11 125 F8 3 Bos taurus Phalanx 17 127 F8 5 Bos taurus Teeth 118 130 F8 6 Bos taurus Phalanx 11 130 F8 6 caprinae Teeth 11 168 F8 7 caprinae Teeth 11 173 F8 7 Bos taurus Scapula 121 175 F8 8 Bos taurus Rib 12 175 F8 8 Bos taurus Teeth 115 179 F8 10 Bos taurus Humerus 138 179 F8 10 caprinae Scapula 110 179 F8 10 caprinae Metacarpal 11 183 F8 11 caprinae Humerus 113 183 F8 11 caprinae Teeth 213 183 F8 11 caprinae Vertebrae 24 135 G5 1 Bos taurus Teeth 11 144 G5 3 caprinae Teeth 13 146 G5 4 Bos taurus Radius 134 146 G5 4 Bos taurus Vertebrae 12 146 G5 4 caprinae Teeth 11 133 G6 1 Bos taurus Teeth 41 133 G6 1 caprinae Teeth 11 133 G6 1 caprinae Teeth 11 149 G6 4 Bos taurus Vertebrae 14 153 G6 6 Bos taurus Metatarsal 163 153 G6 6 Bos taurus Teeth 15 157 G6 7 Bos taurus Teeth 246 157 G6 7 Bos taurus Teeth 19 157 G6 7 Bos taurus Teeth 85 157 G6 7 Bos taurus Phalanx 15 157 G6 7 caprinae Teeth 15 159 G6 8 Tilapinii Vertebrae 10.5 159 G6 8 Bos taurus Teeth 113 159 G6 8 Bos taurus Teeth 123 159 G6 8 Bos taurus Teeth 127 159 G6 8 Bos taurus Phalanx 16 159 G6 8 caprinae Tibia 112 159 G6 8 caprinae Pelvis 14 159 G6 8 caprinae Vertebrae 34 162 G6 9 Equus asinus Metatarsal 159 163 G6 10 caprinae Rib 12 165 G6 11 caprinae Teeth 44 120 G8 3 Bos taurus Ulna 119 121 G8 4 Bos taurus Scapula 151 121 G8 4 Bos taurus Vertebrae 14 121 G8 4 Bos taurus Pelvis 12

PAGE 418

418 171 G8 5 caprinae Metacarpal 16 225 G8 7 Bos taurus Femur 113 225 G8 7 Bos taurus Vertebrae 16 225 G8 7 Bos taurus Phalanx 12 225 G8 7 Bos taurus Sesamod 34 225 G8 7 caprinae Teeth 32 225 G8 7 caprinae Radius 11 225 G8 7 caprinae Ulna 11 225 G8 7 caprinae Tarsal 11 225 G8 7 caprinae Mandible 12 109 H7 1 Bos taurus Teeth 11 116 H7 4 Equus asinus Teeth 112 Unidentified (uid) Faunal Remains Bag # Unit Level N Weight (g) Unit A2 294 A2 1 19 55.5 298 A2 1 4 n/a 301 A2 1 21 95.0 302 A2 1 7 25.2 307 A2 2 5 10.0 310 A2 2 6 6.5 313 A2 2 7 6.8 315 A2 2 15 17.0 319 A2 2 19 85.0 322 A2 3 12 11.0 327 A2 3 2 4.5 331 A2 3 3 3.9 335 A2 3 4 4.1 341 A2 3 3 4.1 342 A2 3 10 24.9 345 A2 3 11 50.0 348 A2 3 7 7.0 352 A2 3 27 32.9 325 A2 5 1 9.8 337 A2 6 2 11.2 353 A2 6 30 105.0 354 A2 6 15 15.5 355 A2 7 30 21.5 373 A2 7 14 150.0 379 A2 7 22 14.8 358 A2 1-7 10 8.4 359 A2 1-7 10 6.1

PAGE 419

419 360 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

PAGE 420

420 156 F7G7 1 4 4.3 181 F7G7 1 44 100.0 186 F7G7 1 15 12.5 188 F7G7 1 20 12.4 190 F7G7 1 12 13.5 193 F7G7 1 25 50.0 194 F7G7 1 25 3.1 197 F7G7 1 24 80.0 246 F7G7 1 3 n/a 249 F7G7 1 3 3.3 251 F7G7 1 4 4.3 252 F7G7 1 5 8.4 134 F7G7 1a 5 5.3 138 F7G7 1a 8 7.3 141 F7G7 1a 4 5.6 189 F7G7 2 21 15.4 192 F7G7 2 74 120.0 196 F7G7 2 62 100.0 198 F7G7 2 28 n/a 200 F7G7 2 7 20.0 201 F7G7 2 55 105.0 202 F7G7 2 42 22.2 203 F7G7 2 54 100.0 205 F7G7 2 32 80.0 206 F7G7 2 68 100.0 207 F7G7 2 27 13.2 208 F7G7 2 20 70.0 209 F7G7 2 34 110.0 211 F7G7 2 25 40.0 216 F7G7 2 36 100.0 224 F7G7 2 16 80.0 226 F7G7 2 27 50.0 245 F7G7 2 4 5.4 256 F7G7 2 1 3.3 257 F7G7 2 6 5.0 259 F7G7 2 10 50.0 261 F7G7 2 27 50.0 264 F7G7 2 30 62.4 268 F7G7 2 2 3.1 210 F7G7 3 19 50.0 212 F7G7 3 21 55.0

PAGE 421

421 217 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

PAGE 422

422 260 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 J8 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 E1 surface 2 7.0 18 E4 surface 12 n/a 37 E5 surface 21 100.0 103 F13 surface 3 23.7 148 F5 3 3 n/a 152 F5 4 16 9.6

PAGE 423

423 154 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

PAGE 424

424 165 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.

PAGE 425

425 APPENDIX E ARTIFACT CATALOG – NON-POTTERY MATERIALS SLAG Bag # Unit Level N Weight (g)Mean weight (g) 302 A2 4 13.23.2 313 A2 7 23.41.7 373 A2 25 47.61.9 364 A2 1-22 29.04.5 397 C4 22 14.94.9 132 F5 1 512.52.5 158 F5 6 36.42.1 164 F5 8 10.50.5 128 F6 1 3650.01.4 140 F6 3 26.43.2 145 F6 5 18.48.4 172 F6 6 26100.03.8 174 F6 7 1232.12.7 176 F6 8 55.91.2 180 F6 10 37180.04.9 106 F7 1 450n/an/a 123 F7 2 89125.01.4 193 F7 10 26.63.3 203 F7 16 212.66.3 206 F7 17 35.21.7 207 F7 18 116.616.6 265 F7 18 56.61.3 209 F7 19 99.71.1 275 F7 22 44.01.0 284 F7 25 729.44.2 245 F7 2-6 58.61.7 218 F7 11-22 310.33.4 134 F7-firing pit 3 1450.03.6 138 F7-firing pit 4 36.42.1 107 F8 1 550600.01.1 124 F8 2 5n/an/a 125 F8 3 7065.00.9 126 F8 4 2490.03.8 127 F8 5 47130.02.8 130 F8 6 50n/an/a 168 F8-N 7 912.61.4 135 G5 1 25n/an/a 25 G5 surface 213.46.7 133 G6 1 365n/an/a 137 G6 3 26100.03.8 149 G6 4 22170.07.7 151 G6 5 1133.63.1 153 G6 6 4100.025.0

PAGE 426

426 157 G6 7 42200.04.8 159 G6 8 32120.03.8 162 G6 9 525.05.0 46 G6 surface 7100.014.3 105 G7 1 8081300.01.6 111 G7 2 250650.02.6 112 G7 3 379600.01.6 113 G7 4 373105.00.3 115 G7 5 106180.01.7 118 G7 6 2440.01.7 181 G7 7 612.02.0 56 G7 surface 187.00.4 182 G7-N 1 15.65.6 239 G7-W 1 12.02.0 108 G8 1 460750.01.6 119 G8 2 7090.01.3 121 G8 4 1920.01.1 171 G8 5 218.29.1 67 G8 surface 560.012.0 47 H6 surface 2960.02.1 109 H7 1 33190.05.8 110 H7 2 2350.02.2 114 H7 3 1914.40.8 254 J3 1 26.13.1 266 J3 5 49.72.4 272 J3 8 5110.022.0 283 J3 15 33.31.1 METAL Bag # Unit LS level N Weight (g)Mean weight (g) 294 A2 1 1 30.030.0 302 A2 1 8 100.012.5 307 A2 2 1 3.03.0 358 A2 1-7 10 n/an/a 362 C4 1 1 9.19.1 105 F7G7 1 1 3.53.5 106 F7G7 1 1 9.69.6 112 F7G7 1 1 3.93.9 123 F7G7 1 1 3.43.4 249 F7G7 1 1 10.110.1 255 F7G7 1 3 n/an/a 200 F7G7 2 2 28.014.0 201 F7G7 2 1 21.921.9 278 F7G7 5 5 18.53.7 254 J3 1 3 5.31.8 260 J3 2 3 3.51.2 295 J8 1 2 7.53.8 299 J8 1 1 n/an/a

PAGE 427

427 311 J8 1 1 8.98.9 318 J8 1 1 12.012.0 334 J8 3 1 20.020.0 132 F5 1 5 60.012.0 128 F6 1 4 2.50.6 172 F6 6 1 3.93.9 107 F8 1 1 4.04.0 25 G5 surface 1 8.18.1 133 G6 1 3 4.31.4 149 G6 4 1 2.52.5 171 G8 5 2 13.36.7 27 H3 surface 1 2.42.4 GLASS Bag # Unit LS level Color N Weight (g)Mean weight (g) 294 A2 1 g/c 412.83.2 g/c = both green 302 A2 1 green 12.22.2 and clear glass 360 A2 1-7 clear 12.62.6 fragments present 351 C4 1 g/c 34.91.6 357 C4 1 clear 16.46.4 372 C4 2 green 258.629.3 376 C4 2 clear 12.22.2 105 F7G7 1 n/a 38.32.8 118 F7G7 1 clear 12.32.3 193 F7G7 1 green 112.212.2 196 F7G7 2 green 12.42.4 209 F7G7 2 green 12.72.7 284 F7G7 6 clear 22.71.4 215 F7G7 1-2 g/c 4n/an/a 254 J3 1 g/c 40902.3 258 J3 1 n/a 1013.91.4 260 J3 2 n/a 28501.8 263 J3 3 g/c 84.10.5 283 J3 4 clear 12.92.9 295 J8 1 n/a 36.92.3 26 B3 surface g/c 314.64.9 for units that were 2 C1 surface clear 28.74.4 not fully excavated, 132 F5 1 g/c 35.61.9 levels given are the 142 F6 4 green 12.22.2 original arbitrary levels 127 F8 5 clear 34.91.6 135 G5 1 green 57.31.5 133 G6 1 clear 12.32.3 162 G6 9 green 12.82.8 120 G8 3 clear 13.53.5 121 G8 4 g/c 27.53.8 27 H3 surface green 212.76.4

PAGE 428

428 24 H4 surface green 15.35.3 114 H7 3 g/c 1130.12.7 116 H7 4 g/c 21602.9 15 J4 surface clear 133.0 BEADS Bag # unit LS Level Color Diameter (mm) Hole Diameter (mm) 356 C4 1 white 8.53.4 362 C4 1 blue 4.11.9 372 C4 2 yellow 3.92.1 105 F7G7 1 white 7.2broken 200 F7G7 2 green 7.42.7 201 F7G7 2 white 2.31.8 257 F7G7 2 blue 5.81.6 257 F7G7 2 blue 7.03.2 257 F7G7 2 blue 6.22.5 257 F7G7 2 blue 6.32.2 257 F7G7 2 blue 7.32.4 259 F7G7 2 blue 6.42.7 259 F7G7 2 green 2.81.8 259 F7G7 2 yellow 4.41.6 268 F7G7 2 green 8.23.0 268 F7G7 2 green 3.01.5 268 F7G7 2 white 2.81.1 278 F7G7 5 green 6.02.0 281 F7G7 6 clear 3.71.7 282 J3 4 red 4.92.3 295 J8 1 red 8.74.3 295 J8 1 white 7.12.9 309 J8 1 blue 3.11.8 312 J8 1 red 12.23.7 312 J8 1 green 3.31.6 321 J8 4 white n/an/a 5 E1 surface blue 11.92.6 125 F8 3 black 4.82.4 130 F8 6 white 8.53.4 120 G8 3 white 2.60.6 225 G8 7 red 10.13.3

PAGE 429

429 APPENDIX F AG 2004 POTTERY: BODY SHER D COUNTS AND WEIGHTS Bag # sherd count weight (g) Bag# sherd count weight (g) 4 25 203.7 209 17247.5 22 16 133.0 210 11163.4 32 30 ~240.1 211 44416.8 55 16 123.3 212 39150.8 56 47 ~831.2 213 326.3 69 23 86.3 214 1260.9 105 349 3754.8 215 27112.6 106 253 1731.9 216 65413.8 111 114 2984.4 217 38183.6 112 164 2497.7 218 676.5 113 376 4612.7 221 75432.3 115 299 1823.2 222 764.8 118 313 2195.9 223 1897.8 123 411 3427.1 224 47166.5 134 79 692.1 226 64478.1 138 120 1283.3 227 58203.4 141 45 436.9 228 79211.0 150 3 30.5 229 53487.5 155 5 18.6 230 312.7 156 20 138.9 231 2046.6 160 12 61.3 232 28165.1 181 65 442.6 233 414.9 182 17 126.7 234 2297.0 184 156 1696.4 235 2178.2 185 17 111.1 236 1748.1 186 10 190.0 237 620.9 187 30 101.7 238 18.6 188 56 415.0 239 18115.8 189 87 822.6 240 27.3 190 67 ~799.7 241 321.7 191 32 273.3 242 1237.1 192 74 1591.9 244 219.3 193 42 402.7 245 14128.1 194 79 581.3 246 88200.2 195 11 62.5 247 1173.2 196 99 765.1 248 236.0 197 74 410.6 249 1276.6

PAGE 430

430 198 32 94.2 251 36327.1 199 9 23.6 252 22258.0 200 18 133.5 253 552.0 201 35 203.7 254 118703.0 202 20 131.5 255 1138.6 203 27 226.6 256 18111.6 204 4 47.1 257 25175.3 205 45 466.8 258 72250.1 206 37 685.6 259 35340.9 207 32 470.2 260 216759.4 208 41 620.2 312 99481.1 261 39 223.4 313 52305.0 262 6 24.8 314 51238.2 263 130 768.5 315 21129.5 264 38 238.7 316 724.2 265 55 448.1 317 418.3 266 285 1130.1 318 113484.5 267 164 815.1 319 28362.5 268 12 103.0 320 21155.1 269 59 323.0 321 98276.9 270 102 576.0 322 16171.0 271 61 299.1 323 44.7 272 116 683.9 324 2038.8 273 33 179.7 325 530.0 274 76 460.4 326 1227.5 275 78 258.8 327 2597.2 276 107 493.2 328 756.1 277 154 480.7 329 54.1 278 77 157.5 330 2020.4 279 128 719.4 331 14113.1 280 134 795.6 332 17.2 281 61 291.7 333 454.5 282 76 407.6 334 827.0 283 143 835.2 335 14302.0 284 15 78.1 336 219.3 285 71 396.0 338 15144.7 286 98 572.6 339 320.3 287 3 6.9 341 1349.8 288 33 122.2 342 60180.4 290 3 11.0 343 510.5 292 1 3.5 345 20175.4

PAGE 431

431 294 337 1832.2 346 444.8 295 338 1143.1 347 39.7 296 3 27.2 348 40122.8 297 4 17.3 349 630.4 298 53 298.3 350 24.7 299 142 505.1 351 2411464.4 300 3 25.2 352 34138.2 301 82 780.7 353 1151.4 302 103 841.4 355 41159.4 303 35 132.5 356 109378.2 304 43 101.2 357 2011275.3 305 11 17.7 358 110840.9 306 71 299.5 359 3543.2 307 117 632.2 360 41149.1 308 8 26.1 361 613.5 309 141 594.8 362 135973.4 310 141 906.9 363 92555.1 311 21 57.5 390 733.4 364 9 33.9 391 27.9 365 103 659.6 392 17121.8 366 4 42.0 393 13165.0 367 131 917.9 394 569.8 368 48 117.8 395 17.9 369 2 45.5 396 313.1 370 84 818.1 397 212.4 371 126 889.6 398 14.4 372 156 1101.4 399 313.4 373 2 12.1 400 11.7 374 7 71.0 401 15.2 375 33 247.5 TOTAL12320.082911.2 376 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

PAGE 432

432APPENDIX G POTTERY ATTRIBUTES BY VESSEL TYPE Unit A2 type level surface treatment decorative type exterior use alteration interior use alteration sherd thickness (mm) rim diameter (cm) rim shape diste 1 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration erosion none 8.7too small tapered diste 1 interior slip/exterior smooth no decoration dull soot scratches 7.925 square with lip diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none erosion 14.850 hemicircle diste 1 interior and exterior slip no deco ration erosion scratches 13.750 hemicircle diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot none 9.1too small rounded diste 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion scratches 10.7too small square diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion none 7too small tapered diste 2 interior and exterior slip no deco ration erosion scratches 7.2too small tapered diste 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion scratches 17.6too small rounded with lip diste 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and scratches cracking 7.730 square with lip diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot erosion 12.736 square diste 3 interior and exterior slip fingernail/stick crescent erosion none 10.7too small rounded diste 3 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration dull soot erosion 13.7too small rounded diste 3 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion scratches 9.3too small rounded diste 3 interior and exterior slip no decoration dull soot and cracking erosion, scratches and cracking 13.532 rounded diste 3 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration pitting scratches 14.9too small square

PAGE 433

433diste 7 interior and exterior slip no decoration none none 13.4too small square insera 1 interior smooth/exterior slip no decoration none none 15.2no rim no rim insera 1 interior smooth/exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion 15.6no rim no rim insera 1 interior smooth/exterior slip single appliqu horizontal line scratches erosion 5.5no rim no rim insera 1 interior and exterior slip single appliqu horizontal line none erosion 10.8too small square with lip insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion and scratches 8.312 curved insera 1 interior and exterior slip multiple appliqu lines none pitting 9.114 curved insera 2 interior and exterior slip Single appliqu horizontal line none erosion 9.2no rim no rim insera 2 interior burnish/exterior slip incised zigzag line scratches pitting 11.2no rim no rim insera 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration none erosion 7.16 curved insera 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration none none 9.88 curved insera 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration scratches erosion 9.58 pointed concave insera 2 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration scratches scratches 4.29 rounded insera 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion pitting 9.89 pointed concave insera 2 interior and exterior burnish no decoration erosion pitting 12.514 curved insera 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration rim chips erosion and pitting 9.914 pointed concave insera 3 interior burnish/exterior slip incised wavy line on appliqu none erosion 12.9no rim no rim insera 3 interior and exterior slip incised horizontal and diagonal lines on rim none none 6.9too small rounded insera 3 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration none erosion 12.3too small curved

PAGE 434

434jebena 2 interior smooth/exterior slip incised horizontal and vertical lines none none 4.9no rim no rim mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion none 11.4too small rounded mitad 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration pitting none 16.5too small rounded mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration pitting none 20.3too small rounded mitad 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion none 14.9too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion none 17.1too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion none 17.1too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior slip/exterior smooth no decoration erosion none 20.5too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior slip/exterior smooth no decoration pitting none 19.4too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot none 19.4too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior slip/exterior smooth no decoration erosion and dull soot none 19.3too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration pitting and dull soot none 21.7too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion erosion 19.7too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none scratches 16.1too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion scratches 14.6too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot scratches 19.5too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion rim chips 21.2too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior slip/exterior smooth no decoration dull soot and cracking cracking 20.1too small rounded with lip

PAGE 435

435mitad 1 interior and exterior s lip no decoration erosion none 11.830 square flare with ridge mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration pitting and dull soot scratches 18.1too small rounded with lip mitad 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion none 18.2too small square mitad 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion scratches 13.1too small square mitad 2 interior and exterior slip no deco ration pitting scratches 13.9too small square mitad 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration none none 15too small square with lip mitad 2 interior slip/exterior smooth no decoration erosion none 17.7too small rounded with lip mitad 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration scratches none 18.9too small rounded with lip mitad 2 side uid: slip/burnish no d ecoration erosion erosion 10too small rounded with lip mitad 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion scratches 14.1too small rounded with lip mitad 3 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion none 13.2too small rounded mitad 3 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration pitting none 19.8too small rounded mitad 3 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot none 10.3too small rounded with lip mitad 3 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration pitting and dull soot none 21.6too small rounded with lip mitad 3 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion erosion 15.4too small rounded with lip mitad 3 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot scratches 18.8too small rounded with lip mitad 3 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot scratches 18.5too small rounded with lip mitad 7 interior slip/exterior smooth no decoration pitting none 18.3too small square

PAGE 436

436Unit C4 type level surface treatment decorative type exterior use alteration interior use alteration sherd thickness rim diameter rim shape diste 1 interior smooth/exterior slip no decoration none none 8.514 rounded diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration glossy soot scratches 1336 rounded with lip diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration wear on handle scratches 9.4too small rounded diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion none 10.7too small square with lip diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration none none 3.510 rounded diste 2 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration erosion scratches 8.718 square diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration pitting and dull soot none 7.822 tapered diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration wear on handle none 8.324 square with lip diste 2 interior slip/exterior smooth no decoration erosion and dull soot none 1228 square with lip diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration none scratches 10.630 square with lip diste 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion erosion 14.140 square with lip diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration scratches none 7.3no rim no rim diste 3 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration pitting none 10.2too small tapered diste 3 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion erosion 8.312 rounded diste 3 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration none erosion and scratches 10.816 curved diste 3 interior and exterior slip multiple incised lines none rim chips 9.422 rounded diste 3 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration dull soot scratches 10.726 rounded with lip diste 4 interior slip/exterior no decora tion erosion scratches 7.7too small rounded

PAGE 437

437burnish diste 3a interior and exterior slip no decoration dull soot scratches 716 curved diste 3a interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot scratches 9.826 hemicircle insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none scratches 7.58 tapered insera 1 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration scratches scratches 7.410 curved insera 1 interior and exterior slip finger impressions on appliqu line erosion and rim chips erosion 6.110 indeterminate insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion 1112 pointed concave insera 1 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration none erosion 6.3no rim no rim insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none erosion and pitting 10.2no rim no rim insera 2 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration none none 10.4too small curved insera 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion none 7.5too small pointed concave insera 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion scratches 5.34 curved insera 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion 4.96 curved insera 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration none erosion 9.310 curved insera 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion and scratches 8.210 pointed concave insera 2 interior burnish/exterior slip single appliqu horizontal line none erosion 8.110 square flare insera 2 interior and exterior burnish no decoration none scratches 9.212 tapered insera 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration none pitting 10.614 curved insera 2 interior smooth/exterior slip no decoration wear on handle none 40.5no rim no rim insera 2 interior plain/exterior slip no decoration none pitting 49.1no rim no rim insera 2 interior indeterminate/exterior no decoration wear on handle indeterminate46.7no rim no rim

PAGE 438

438slip insera 3 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration none pitting 8.814 curved insera 3 interior smooth/exterior slip multiple appliqu lines none none 7.5no rim no rim insera 3 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration none erosion 7.7no rim no rim insera 3 interior smooth/exterior slip no decoration none erosion 9.2no rim no rim insera 3 interior burnish/exterior slip single appliqu horizontal line none erosion 12.8no rim no rim insera 3 interior burnish/exterior slip single appliqu horizontal line none erosion 12.1no rim no rim insera 3 interior smooth/exterior slip multiple appliqu lines none erosion 8.1no rim no rim insera 3 interior smooth/exterior slip no decoration wear on handle erosion 47.3no rim no rim insera 3 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration none erosion and pitting 8.3no rim no rim insera 3a interior and exterior slip multiple horizontal incised lines on interior/exterior rim erosion erosion and scratches 5.110 pointed concave insera 3a interior smooth/exterior slip multiple appliqu lines none erosion 10.8no rim no rim insera 3a interior and exterior slip no d ecoration erosion scratches 8.5no rim no rim mitad 1 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration erosion erosion 7.8too small rounded mitad 1 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration erosion none 13.8too small tapered mitad 1 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration erosion none 10.3too small tapered mitad 1 side uid: slip/smoothing no decoration side unidentified side unidentified 19.2too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion none 14too small rounded with lip

PAGE 439

439mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion none 21.9too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior slip/exterior plain no decoration erosion none 15.4too small rounded with lip mitad 1 side uid: slip/indeterminate no decoration side unidentified side unidentified 17.7too small hemicircle mitad 1 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration none scratches 7.68 rounded mitad 1 interior and exterior s lip no decoration erosion none 11.430 square with lip mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration none none 17.350 rounded with lip mitad 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion none 15too small rounded mitad 2 interior and exterior burnish no decoration erosion none 15.7too small rounded mitad 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion none 14.1too small rounded mitad 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion none 13.2too small rounded mitad 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion erosion 14.1too small rounded mitad 2 interior and exterior slip no deco ration erosion scratches 14.9too small rounded mitad 2 interior slip/exterior smooth no decoration erosion scratches 12.2too small rounded mitad 2 interior slip/exterior smooth no decoration pitting and dull soot scratches 16too small rounded mitad 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and scratches none 15.5too small square with lip mitad 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion none 14.2too small rounded with lip mitad 2 interior slip/exterior smooth no decoration erosion and dull soot none 15.4too small rounded with lip mitad 2 interior slip/exterior plain no decoration erosion and dull soot none 21.9too small rounded with lip

PAGE 440

440mitad 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration pitting and dull soot none 15.7too small rounded with lip mitad 2 interior slip/exterior smooth no decoration pitting and dull soot none 15.1too small rounded with lip mitad 2 interior slip/exterior smooth no decoration pitting and dull soot none 14.5too small rounded with lip mitad 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration dull soot erosion 14.9too small rounded with lip mitad 2 interior slip/exterior smooth no decoration erosion scratches 12.2too small rounded with lip mitad 2 interior slip/exterior smooth no decoration erosion and scratches dull soot 16.8too small rounded with lip mitad 2 interior slip/exterior smooth no decoration erosion and dull soot none 18.4too small sloped with lip mitad 2 interior slip/exterior smooth no decoration erosion none 16.9too small square flare mitad 2 interior slip/exterior smooth no decoration erosion none 18.3too small indeterminate mitad 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion none 13.450 square with lip mitad 2 interior and exterior s lip no decoration erosion none 11.850 sloped with lip mitad 3 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration dull soot none 16.7too small rounded mitad 3 interior slip/exterior smooth no decoration pitting and dull soot scratches 12.4too small rounded mitad 3 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion none 13.2too small rounded with lip mitad 3 interior slip/exterior smooth no decoration erosion and dull soot none 16.3too small rounded with lip mitad 3 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot scratches 19too small rounded with lip mitad 3 interior slip/exterior indeterminate no decoration pitting and dull soot scratches 16.6too small rounded with lip mitad 3 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration pitting none 1032 rounded

PAGE 441

441mitad 3 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot none 13.850 rounded mitad 4 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion none 14.7too small rounded mitad 4 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion none 17.6too small rounded mitad 4 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and pitting none 12.1too small rounded mitad 4 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration pitting and dull soot none 16.1too small rounded mitad 4 interior slip/exterior smooth no decoration erosion and pitting scratches 17too small rounded mitad 4 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion erosion and scratches 15.4too small square with lip mitad 4 side uid: slip/burnish no decoration side unidentified side unidentified 16.3too small rounded with lip mitad 4 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration pitting and dull soot none 16.2too small hemicircle mitad 3a interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion none 10.3too small rounded mitad 3a interior and exterior slip no deco ration dull soot scratches 14.8too small rounded mitad 3a interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and scratches none 16.5too small rounded with lip mitad 3a interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion none 15.9too small hemicircle mitad 3a interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot scratches 19too small round with lip and ridge mitad 3a interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration none scratches 1230 rounded mitad 3a interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot scratches 14.650 rounded with lip Unit J3 type level surface treatment decorative type exterior use alteration interior use alteration sherd thickness rim diameter rim shape

PAGE 442

442diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none pitting 6.1no rim no rim diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none none 5.5too small tapered diste 1 interior and exterior slip finger pinch in uid line none none 6too small tapered diste 1 interior and exterior s lip no decoration none none 510 rounded diste 1 interior and exterior smoothing no decoration none none 5.210 rounded diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none scratches 6.112 rounded diste 1 interior and exterior smoothing no decoration none erosion 6.912 hemicircle diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none none 6.324 no rim diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration pitting none 10.526 rounded with lip diste 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration none none 13.930 rounded diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none none 14.746 rounded diste 1 interior and exterior burnish no decoration none pitting 9.4too small curved diste 2 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration none scratches 5.8too small rounded diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration none scratches 7.314 tapered diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration none none 6.118 tapered diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration none scratches 5.518 rounded diste 3 interior and exterior slip multiple dragged impressed lines none erosion 5.9no rim no rim diste 3 interior and exterior burnish no decoration none none 7.2no rim no rim diste 3 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration none none 7.5too small indeterminate diste 3 interior and exterior smoothing no decoration erosion and dull soot pitting and scratches 12.9too small curved diste 3 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion and scratches 14.4too small tapered diste 3 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration pitting erosion 11.3too small rounded

PAGE 443

443diste 3 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and pitting none 13.3too small rounded with lip diste 3 interior burnish/exterior smooth no decoration dull soot glossy soot 7.212 tapered diste 3 interior and exterior slip no decoration none scratches 3.114 rounded diste 3 interior and exterior slip incised horizontal lines on rim and zigzag none none 3.816 rounded diste 3 interior and exterior slip no decoration none none 4.816 tapered diste 3 interior and exterior slip no decoration none rim chips 724 tapered diste 3 interior and exterior burnish fingernail/stick crescent erosion pitting 12.524 hemicircle diste 3 interior and exterior slip no decoration scratches and dull soot scratches 10.226 rounded with lip diste 3 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration dull soot scratches 10.630 sloped with lip diste 3 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion 10.530 rounded diste 3 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration none scratches 6.736 hemicircle diste 3 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion scratches 14.250 rounded diste 4 interior and exterior slip appliqu circle erosion and dull soot pitting 15.1too small rounded diste 4 interior slip/exterior smooth no decoration erosion and dull soot none 13.3too small square flare diste 4 interior and exterior slip multiple incised lines none none 3.410 rounded diste 4 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion scratches 13.122 sloped diste 4 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration rim chips scratches 10.224 hemicircle diste 4 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion scratches 12.928 square with lip diste 4 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion none 13.230 sloped with lip

PAGE 444

444diste 4 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration dull soot scratches 10.732 square insera 1 interior plain/exterior slip single incised horizontal line none none 11.1no rim no rim insera 1 interior plain/exterior slip no decoration none none 40.7no rim no rim insera 1 interior and exterior smoothing no decoration none none 16.2too small curved insera 1 interior smooth/exterior slip no decoration pitting none 14.6too small curved insera 1 interior and exterior slip incised horizontal and zigzag lines none none 5.814 pointed concave insera 1 interior and exterior burnish no decoration none none 9.318 pointed concave insera 1 uid: slip/burnish no decoration not applicable not applicable 1428 curved insera 2 interior and exterior slip multiple incised lines cracking none 6.8too small pointed concave insera 2 interior smooth/exterior slip no decoration none scratches 6.8too small curved insera 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration none erosion 7too small curved insera 3 interior burnish/exterior slip single appliqu horizontal line none pitting 21no rim no rim insera 3 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration erosion pitting 17.6too small rounded insera 3 interior and exterior slip no decoration none scratches 9.812 rounded insera 3 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration none pitting and scratches 11.316 curved insera 3 interior and exterior slip no decoration none scratches and rim chips 6.320 tapered insera 3 interior smooth/exterior burnish no decoration pitting none 1020 square with lip insera 4 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration scratches none 10.2no rim no rim

PAGE 445

445insera 4 interior burnish/exterior slip single appliqu horizontal line none pitting 11no rim no rim insera 4 interior plain/exterior slip multiple appliqu lines none pitting 7.2no rim no rim insera 4 interior indeterminate/exterior burnish single appliqu horizontal line pitting erosion and pitting 12.1no rim no rim insera 4 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration none pitting 8.4no rim no rim insera 4 uid: slip/burnish single appliqu line uid erosion erosion 13.5no rim no rim insera 4 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration none pitting 15.7no rim no rim insera 4 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration none erosion 17no rim no rim insera 4 interior and exterior slip multiple incised lines none scratches 8.3too small pointed concave insera 4 interior and exterior slip multiple incised lines none none 2.79 rounded insera 4 interior and exterior slip no decoration none none 10.314 curved jebena 1 interior smooth/exterior burnish single appliqu horizontal line none erosion 7.3no rim no rim mitad 1 uid: slip/plain no decoration dull soot dull soot 12.1too small rounded mitad 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none none 19.1too small rounded mitad 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none none 13.334 square mitad 1 interior and exterior smoothing no decoration none none 11.544 rounded mitad 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration none erosion 16.550 square mitad 3 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration pitting none 12.8too small hemicircle mitad 3 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration none scratches 17too small rounded

PAGE 446

446mitad 3 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration scratches and dull soot erosion 16too small rounded mitad 3 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion none 17.6too small rounded mitad 3 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration pitting erosion 16.6too small rounded mitad 3 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion none 18.4too small rounded with lip mitad 3 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration none food residue 7.412 rounded mitad 3 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration none glossy soot 10.134 square with lip mitad 3 interior and exterior slip no decoration none none 12.740 rounded mitad 3 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration pitting none 1140 rounded mitad 4 interior and exterior slip no decoration none scratches 6.6too small square with lip mitad 4 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration erosion erosion 8too small rounded mitad 4 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration pitting and dull soot none 13.7too small hemicircle mitad 4 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion none 10.8too small hemicircle mitad 4 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot none 11.7too small square mitad 4 interior and exterior slip no decoration none erosion 16.1too small rounded mitad 4 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration none cracking 14.6too small square with lip mitad 4 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion scratches 14.5too small square mitad 4 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and pitting none 15.3too small rounded mitad 4 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration pitting none 12.8too small rounded mitad 4 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and spalling none 14.7too small hemicircle

PAGE 447

447mitad 4 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion none 13.6too small rounded mitad 4 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion none 12.6too small rounded mitad 4 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and pitting none 15.9too small square with lip mitad 4 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration pitting none 15.4too small square mitad 4 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion none 13.6too small sloped mitad 4 interior and exterior slip no deco ration dull soot scratches 11.6too small rounded mitad 4 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot scratches 15.5too small hemicircle mitad 4 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion none 17.7too small rounded with lip mitad 4 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion none 11.6too small rounded mitad 4 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and pitting none 13.4too small rounded with lip mitad 4 interior and exterior slip no decoration pitting none 13.8too small rounded with lip mitad 4 interior slip/exterior plain no decoration erosion and pitting none 16.6too small sloped with lip mitad 4 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot none 11.128 sloped with lip mitad 4 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration none none 12.936 rounded mitad 4 interior slip/exterior plain no decoration erosion erosion 15.544 rounded with lip mitad 4 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration none erosion 15.850 square mitad 4 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration pitting and dull soot none 12.4too small curved

PAGE 448

448Unit J8 type level surface treatment decorative type exterior use alteration interior use alteration sherd thickness rim diameter rim shape diste 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion scratches 8.6too small rounded diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decora tion none scratches 12.1too small square flare diste 1 interior and exterior burnish no decoration erosion scratches 10.926 square diste 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion none 11.428 square diste 3 interior and exterior slip incised horizontal and zigzag lines none scratches 5.5too small tapered diste 3 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot scratches 10.7too small hemicircle diste 3 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion scratches 13.750 rounded with lip diste 4 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration erosion erosion 9.3too small rounded insera 1 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration none erosion and pitting 16.5no rim no rim insera 1 interior burnish/exterior slip multiple appliqu lines none pitting 16.3no rim no rim insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none erosion 9.5no rim no rim insera 1 interior and exterior slip single appliqu horizontal line none erosion and pitting 7.2no rim no rim insera 1 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion 7.2no rim no rim insera 1 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration erosion erosion 9.5too small rounded insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none pitting 10.2too small curved insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and scratches scratches 614 rounded insera 2 uid: slip/burnish no decoration not applicable not applicable 16no rim no rim insera 3 interior and exterior slip no decoration none none 11.9no rim no rim

PAGE 449

449mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and pitting scratches 14.1too small hemicircle mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion, scratches and dull soot scratches 13.1too small rounded mitad 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and pitting none 13.3too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion scratches 11.7too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion none 15.5too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and scratches scratches 15.6too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion, scratches and dull soot scratches 18.2too small sloped with lip mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot scratches 15.750 hemicircle mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot none 16.250 rounded mitad 2 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration erosion none 17.2too small square mitad 3 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot none 17.6too small rounded with lip mitad 4 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and pitting none 18.8too small square with lip mitad 4 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion none 23.6too small rounded mitad 4 interior and exterior slip no decoration dull soot none 16too small square with lip Unit F7G7 type level surface treatment decorative type exterior use alteration interior use alteration sherd thickness rim diameter rim shape

PAGE 450

450diste 1 interior and exterior burnish no decoration dull soot erosion 34.9no rim no rim diste 1 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration scratches none 6.1too small rounded diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion none 9.2too small rounded diste 1 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration none scratches 8.5too small rounded diste 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration none pitting 6.3too small tapered diste 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion scratches 8.6too small rounded diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none none 7.3too small square with lip diste 1 interior and exterior slip finger impressions none pitting 10.9too small curved diste 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion erosion 13.2too small rounded diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot erosion 13.2too small rounded diste 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration scratches erosion and scratches 15too small rounded diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and pitting none 12too small rounded diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration pitting and scratches erosion and scratches 14.4too small rounded diste 1 interior and exterior slip no deco ration erosion scratches 14.6too small rounded diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decora tion erosion erosion 13.8too small square flare diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration pitting scratches 13.8too small rounded with lip diste 1 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration pitting none 10.9too small rounded diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion none 15.5too small sloped diste 1 interior and exterior burnish no decoration erosion none 12.2too small rounded diste 1 interior and exterior burnish no decoration erosion scratches 6.6too small rounded with lip

PAGE 451

451diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion and scratches 48 rounded diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration dull soot erosion and glossy soot 6.710 tapered diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion 5.716 tapered diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none erosion 4.618 tapered diste 1 interior and exterior slip incised horizontal and vertical lines none scratches 6.720 tapered diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none scratches 5.820 square diste 1 interior and exterior s lip no decoration erosion none 7.720 pointed concave diste 1 interior and exterior slip finger impressions scratches erosion 11.520 curved diste 1 interior and exterior slip incised horizontal and vertical lines dull soot scratches 6.922 tapered diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion 6.922 square diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decora tion dull soot scratches 8.222 square flare diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion 522 sloped diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none none 7.324 tapered diste 1 interior and exterior slip incised horizontal and vertical lines erosion scratches 6.424 tapered diste 1 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration erosion scratches 9.126 tapered diste 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion erosion 10.126 square diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion, scratches and dull soot erosion and scratches 11.726 square with lip diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot erosion 9.226 rounded diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot scratches 9.226 rounded with lip diste 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot erosion 928 square flare

PAGE 452

452diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot erosion 12.728 rounded with point and lip diste 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and scratches scratches 15.130 square flare diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion and scratches 14.430 square with lip diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot scratches 11.430 square flare diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration scratches scratches 10.936 hemicircle diste 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration none scratches 12.836 sloped diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and scratches scratches 13.236 square flare diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decora tion dull soot scratches 9.736 square flare diste 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion erosion 12.240 square with lip diste 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion scratches 11.840 square diste 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion scratches 15.244 square diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration dull soot erosion 1644 rounded diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none scratches 1344 rounded with lip diste 1 interior and exterior s lip no decoration erosion none 10.648 rounded with lip diste 1 interior and exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot scratches 14.450 rounded diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot scratches 1250 rounded diste 1 interior and exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot none 1450 rounded diste 1 interior and exterior burnish no decoration erosion erosion 9.350 hemicircle

PAGE 453

453diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion and scratches 18.150 square with lip diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration dull soot none 15.450 rounded diste 1 interior and exterior burnish no decoration erosion scratches 13.450 rounded diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration pitting and cracking none 14.450 rounded diste 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion, scratches and dull soot erosion 13.150 rounded with lip diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot erosion and scratches 12.750 rounded with lip diste 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot none 15.9too small curved diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration pitting none 11.7too small rounded diste 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot none 13too small rounded diste 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot erosion 16.4too small square diste 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion none 14.9too small rounded with lip diste 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot pitting and scratches 18.4too small rounded diste 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot erosion 12.5too small rounded with lip diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and scratches scratches 7.7no rim no rim diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot scratches 22.7no rim no rim diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot pitting 20.2no rim no rim diste 2 interior indeterminate/exterior slip multiple dragged impressed lines none erosion and pitting 10.8no rim no rim

PAGE 454

454diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoratio n dull soot rim chips 11.2too small indeterminate diste 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion scratches 11.2too small rounded diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot erosion 11.3too small square diste 2 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration erosion erosion 15.2too small rounded diste 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and glossy soot erosion and scratches 11.6too small square diste 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion erosion and scratches 15.4too small rounded diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot scratches 12.7too small rounded diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot none 16.3too small rounded diste 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot erosion 15too small rounded diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion 15.6too small rounded with lip diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration scratches erosion and scratches 14.2too small rounded with lip diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot scratches 11.7too small square with lip diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion and scratches 12.1too small square with lip diste 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot erosion and scratches 13.4too small rounded diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and scratches none 11.4too small rounded diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion 15too small rounded with lip diste 2 interior and exterior slip no deco ration dull soot erosion 16.3too small rounded diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot erosion and scratches 12.3too small rounded with lip diste 2 interior slip/exterior no decoratio n erosion scratches 17.5too small square

PAGE 455

455burnish diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion, scratches and dull soot erosion and scratches 13.7too small rounded with lip diste 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot none 17.7too small rounded with lip diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion pitting and scratches 6.68 curved diste 2 interior and exterior slip multiple incised lines erosion scratches 4.510 rounded diste 2 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration scratches scratches 4.614 tapered diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and scratches pitting 11.414 pointed concave diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion pitting 5.118 rounded diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion and scratches 11.318 rounded diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion scratches 15.118 square with lip diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and scratches scratches 11.424 curved diste 2 interior and exterior slip no deco ration erosion scratches 11.926 hemicircle diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and scratches erosion and scratches 8.328 square flare diste 2 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration none scratches 7.528 square flare diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and scratches erosion and scratches 7.128 square flare diste 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and scratches erosion 16.230 hemicircle diste 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and pitting scratches 1232 square diste 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot erosion and scratches 10.836 square diste 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot erosion and scratches 15.238 square

PAGE 456

456diste 2 interior and exterior slip no deco ration erosion scratches 7.240 square flare diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and scratches pitting and scratches 1546 square diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion scratches 13.348 rounded diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion, pitting and dull soot erosion 11.250 rounded diste 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion erosion and scratches 16.350 rounded diste 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot none 1450 rounded diste 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot erosion 18.250 square diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot erosion 15.350 rounded with lip diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot scratches 19.550 hemicircle diste 2 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration erosion erosion 11.1too small rounded diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot none 12.2too small rounded diste 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration scratches and dull soot erosion 19.1too small rounded diste 3 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion erosion and scratches 9.722 tapered diste 3 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot erosion 9.826 square diste 3 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot scratches 14.348 tapered diste 3 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion none 13.5too small rounded diste 4 interior and exterior porcelain glaze paint on porcelain, horizontal line cracking cracking 10.110 rounded

PAGE 457

457diste 4 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion, scratches and dull soot scratches 12.424 sloped with lip diste 4 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion 8.828 square diste 4 interior and exterior slip no decoration scratches and dull soot erosion and scratches 13.436 sloped with lip diste 4 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot erosion and scratches 14too small rounded diste 5 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration erosion erosion 10.2too small rounded diste 6 interior and exterior slip no decoration dull soot erosion 10.324 rounded with point and lip diste 6 interior and exterior slip no decoration pitting and scratches none 13.330 pointed concave diste 6 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot scratches and dull soot 14.448 rounded diste 4a interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion and scratches 12.6too small indeterminate diste 4a interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot erosion 14.3too small rounded diste 4a interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot erosion 11.750 rounded insera 1 interior burnish/exterior slip single appliqu horizontal line none erosion and pitting 7.9no rim no rim insera 1 interior indeterminate/exterior slip single appliqu horizontal line none erosion and pitting 10.4no rim no rim insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none none 7.8no rim no rim insera 1 interior burnish/exterior slip single appliqu horizontal line none erosion 10.1no rim no rim insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none erosion and pitting 13.8no rim no rim insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none pitting 8.8no rim no rim insera 1 interior and exterior burnish no decoration erosion erosion 11.7no rim no rim

PAGE 458

458insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion, pitting and scratches cracking 10.8no rim no rim insera 1 interior indeterminate/exterior slip single appliqu line uid erosion erosion 10.5no rim no rim insera 1 interior burnish/exterior slip single appliqu horizontal line none pitting 12.7no rim no rim insera 1 interior burnish/exterior slip single appliqu line uid none pitting and scratches 16.6no rim no rim insera 1 interior and exterior slip finger pinch in horizontal line and finger impressions none pitting 9.5no rim no rim insera 1 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration erosion pitting 9.8no rim no rim insera 1 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration erosion pitting 10.8no rim no rim insera 1 interior and exterior slip single appliqu horizontal line none pitting 16.1no rim no rim insera 1 interior and exterior slip appliqu horizontal and incised v with lines scratches erosion and pitting 6.8no rim no rim insera 1 interior and exterior slip single appliqu horizontal line none pitting 14.6no rim no rim insera 1 interior and exterior slip single appliqu horizontal line erosion erosion and pitting 13.8no rim no rim insera 1 interior indeterminate/exterior slip finger pinch and fingernail crescents none erosion 7.4no rim no rim insera 1 interior burnish/exterior slip single appliqu horizontal line erosion pitting 17.7no rim no rim insera 1 interior burnish/exterior slip single appliqu line uid none erosion 11.1no rim no rim

PAGE 459

459insera 1 interior and exterior slip finger impressions on appliqu line none pitting 9.3no rim no rim insera 1 interior and exterior slip multiple appliqu lines erosion pitting 7.6no rim no rim insera 1 interior and exterior slip single appliqu horizontal line none erosion 18.1no rim no rim insera 1 interior burnish/exterior slip single appliqu line uid erosion pitting 16.6no rim no rim insera 1 interior indeterminate/exterior slip finger pinch and fingernail crescents none erosion and pitting 8.1no rim no rim insera 1 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration erosion pitting 25.7no rim no rim insera 1 interior burnish/exterior slip multiple appliqu lines none erosion and pitting 18.3no rim no rim insera 1 interior indeterminate/exterior slip single appliqu horizontal line none erosion and pitting 6no rim no rim insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none none 10.5no rim no rim insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none erosion and pitting 6.8no rim no rim insera 1 interior and exterior slip single appliqu horizontal line none erosion and pitting 8.9no rim no rim insera 1 interior and exterior slip single appliqu horizontal line erosion pitting 6.1no rim no rim insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion and pitting 11.1no rim no rim insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none pitting and scratches 12.2no rim no rim insera 1 interior indeterminate/exterior slip finger pinch and fingernail crescents none erosion 7.6no rim no rim insera 1 interior and exterior slip finger pinch and fingernail none erosion and scratches 14.9no rim no rim

PAGE 460

460crescents insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration scratches scratches 5.8too small square insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none none 7.9too small rounded insera 1 interior and exterior slip no deco ration erosion erosion 8.6too small curved insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion and scratches 9.1too small curved insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and cracking cracking 9.4too small curved insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none pitting and scratches 11.5too small curved insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration scratches erosion and scratches 9.4too small curved insera 1 interior burnish/exterior slip single appliqu horizontal line none pitting 8.5too small curved insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration scratches erosion and pitting 13.8too small curved insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion 6.98 curved insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion none 11.68 curved insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none scratches 710 curved insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion pitting 7.110 curved insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion pitting and scratches 9.210 curved insera 1 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration erosion pitting 710 curved insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion pitting 11.710 curved insera 1 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration rim chips erosion 10.610 curved insera 1 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration none scratches 7.511 hemicircle insera 1 interior and exterior slip single incised horizontal line none none 4.712 indeterminate insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion pitting 6.712 curved insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and scratches erosion 7.512 curved insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none scratches 8.812 pointed

PAGE 461

461concave insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none scratches 8.712 curved insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration rim chips pitting 7.612 curved insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion pitting and scratches 6.412 curved insera 1 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration erosion and scratches erosion 712 curved insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion scratches 7.512 curved insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion and scratches 812 square with lip insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none pitting 7.214 curved insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion scratches 8.814 curved insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none erosion, pitting and cracking 9.814 curved insera 1 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration none pitting 14.314 rounded insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion and scratches 7.516 rounded insera 1 interior and exterior slip single appliqu horizontal line scratches scratches 13.916 curved insera 1 interior burnish/exterior slip multiple appliqu lines none pitting and scratches 14.118 curved insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none none 6.1too small square insera 2 interior burnish/exterior slip multiple appliqu lines none erosion and pitting 12no rim no rim insera 2 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration none erosion 8.3no rim no rim insera 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion pitting 18.7no rim no rim insera 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and cracking pitting and scratches 7.2no rim no rim insera 2 interior and exterior slip finger impressions on appliqu line none erosion and pitting 10.1no rim no rim

PAGE 462

462insera 2 interior and exterior slip multiple appliqu lines none erosion 10no rim no rim insera 2 interior burnish/exterior slip single appliqu line uid erosion erosion 8.7no rim no rim insera 2 interior and exterior slip multiple appliqu lines none pitting 17.6no rim no rim insera 2 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion 51.1no rim no rim insera 2 interior indeterminate/exterior slip no decoration scratches erosion and pitting 18.1no rim no rim insera 2 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration erosion and cracking erosion and pitting 8.4no rim no rim insera 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration pitting erosion, pitting and scratches 12.9no rim no rim insera 2 interior and exterior slip multiple appliqu lines none erosion and pitting 10.1no rim no rim insera 2 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration erosion pitting 20.8no rim no rim insera 2 interior burnish/exterior slip single appliqu horizontal line erosion pitting 16.5no rim no rim insera 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration none none 13.2no rim no rim insera 2 interior burnish/exterior slip single appliqu horizontal line erosion pitting 12.6no rim no rim insera 2 interior indeterminate/exterior slip single appliqu line uid erosion erosion and pitting 14.6no rim no rim insera 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration none pitting 9.9no rim no rim insera 2 interior smooth/exterior slip no decoration scratches pitting 10.1no rim no rim insera 2 interior and exterior slip incised v with lines erosion erosion and pitting 12.9no rim no rim

PAGE 463

463insera 2 interior indeterminate/exterior slip single appliqu horizontal line cracking erosion and pitting 9.2no rim no rim insera 2 interior indeterminate/exterior slip no decoration erosion indeterminate10.9no rim no rim insera 2 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration erosion pitting 8.4no rim no rim insera 2 interior burnish/exterior slip multiple dragged impressed lines none erosion and pitting 6.4no rim no rim insera 2 interior and exterior slip no deco ration erosion erosion 3.9too small tapered insera 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration none pitting 7.2too small indeterminate insera 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion and cracking 8.1too small indeterminate insera 2 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration scratches pitting 11too small indeterminate insera 2 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration none pitting 10.1too small hemicircle insera 2 interior and exterior slip no deco ration erosion erosion 12.7too small curved insera 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration cracking cracking 9.78 curved insera 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration none scratches 9.18 curved insera 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration none scratches 6.310 rounded insera 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion scratches 8.610 curved insera 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration scratches erosion and pitting 11.210 curved insera 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion 10.710 curved insera 2 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration scratches scratches 8.710 curved insera 2 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration erosion and scratches pitting 10.610 curved insera 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and scratches scratches 7.612 curved insera 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration scratches erosion and scratches 8.912 curved

PAGE 464

464insera 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration dull soot erosion and pitting 8.712 curved insera 2 interior and exterior burnish no decoration erosion erosion 8.512 square concave insera 2 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion and pitting 11.112 curved insera 2 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration none pitting 20.113 curved insera 2 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration none pitting 1214 curved insera 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration pitting pitting and scratches 10.816 curved insera 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration pitting and scratches pitting and scratches 6.518 curved insera 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration none scratches 5.920 square with lip insera 3 interior and exterior slip no decoration none pitting and scratches 14.6no rim no rim insera 3 interior indeterminate/exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion and pitting 14.1no rim no rim insera 3 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration none scratches 8.9no rim no rim insera 3 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration none pitting 19.1no rim no rim insera 3 interior burnish/exterior slip finger pinch in horizontal line and finger impressions none erosion 15.1no rim no rim insera 3 interior burnish/exterior slip single appliqu horizontal line none erosion 15.9no rim no rim insera 3 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration pitting erosion and scratches 7.8too small rounded insera 3 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion and scratches 7.612 rounded insera 5 interior and exterior slip no deco ration erosion erosion 3.6no rim no rim

PAGE 465

465insera 5 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion scratches 7.112 rounded insera 6 interior indeterminate/exterior slip no decoration none erosion and pitting 7.3no rim no rim insera 6 interior and exterior slip single appliqu horizontal line erosion erosion and pitting 15.6no rim no rim insera 6 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration erosion scratches 8.812 curved insera 4a interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration erosion pitting, scratches and spalling 88 curved insera 4a interior and exterior s lip no decoration none scratches 9.514 pointed concave mitad 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration pitting and dull soot none 7.6no rim no rim mitad 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot erosion 16.1too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior and exterior burnish no decoration erosion erosion 14.6too small rounded mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot none 13too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot none 14.5too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot cracking 17.8too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration dull soot cracking 17.6too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion none 15.8too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior slip/exterior polish no decoration erosion none 18too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion none 15.8too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion scratches 17too small rounded with lip

PAGE 466

466mitad 1 interior and exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot erosion 23.6too small rounded mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion none 18.8too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot erosion 22.9too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot none 20too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot scratches 18.9too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot none 13.448 rounded with lip mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion scratches 13.350 rounded mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot none 14.550 rounded mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot none 18.150 rounded with lip mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot none 15.2too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and pitting scratches 13.9too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot none 15.5too small rounded with lip mitad 2 interior and exterior slip no deco ration erosion scratches 10.7too small rounded mitad 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion erosion and scratches 14.3too small rounded mitad 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion erosion 12.1too small square mitad 2 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration erosion erosion 11.2too small rounded mitad 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion and scratches 14.4too small rounded mitad 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot none 13.6too small rounded

PAGE 467

467mitad 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration dull soot erosion 9.8too small rounded with lip mitad 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion scratches 15.5too small rounded mitad 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion scratches 17.1too small rounded mitad 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion erosion 21.4too small rounded mitad 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot erosion 14.4too small rounded mitad 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and scratches erosion 15.4too small rounded mitad 2 interior and exterior slip no deco ration dull soot erosion 19.5too small rounded mitad 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and scratches erosion 14.6too small rounded mitad 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion none 16.9too small rounded mitad 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot erosion 16.6too small rounded with lip mitad 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion erosion 15.5too small rounded mitad 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion 17.6too small rounded with lip mitad 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion none 18.3too small rounded with lip mitad 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot erosion 16.8too small rounded with lip mitad 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot cracking 14.6too small rounded with lip mitad 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion scratches 15.4too small rounded with lip mitad 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion cracking 18.8too small rounded mitad 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion none 19.4too small rounded with lip

PAGE 468

468mitad 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and scratches erosion 13.6too small rounded with lip mitad 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot scratches 15.1too small rounded with lip mitad 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion erosion 18.1too small rounded with lip mitad 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and scratches erosion 22.1too small indeterminate mitad 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration dull soot cracking 19.8too small rounded with lip mitad 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot scratches 17.7too small rounded with lip mitad 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot scratches and cracking 17.4too small rounded with lip mitad 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and pitting scratches 25.6too small rounded mitad 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot none 1536 rounded with lip mitad 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot erosion and scratches 12.150 rounded mitad 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot none 14.550 rounded with lip mitad 2 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion 15.750 sloped mitad 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion none 17.250 rounded with lip mitad 2 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot scratches 13.950 rounded with lip mitad 2 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration erosion erosion 17.4too small rounded mitad 3 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion erosion 23.3too small rounded mitad 3 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration dull soot scratches 11.2too small rounded with lip mitad 3 interior and exterior slip no d ecoration erosion erosion 16.5too small rounded mitad 3 interior and exterior slip no deco ration erosion scratches 21.7too small rounded

PAGE 469

469mitad 4 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion none 15.6too small rounded mitad 4 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and scratches none 14.4too small rounded with lip mitad 4a interior and exterior slip no d ecoration erosion none 14.5too small hemicircle mitad 4a interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot none 14.450 rounded mitad 5 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot scratches 15too small hemicircle mitad 5 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot none 13.4too small rounded with lip mitad 6 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion and scratches 11.5too small rounded with lip mitad 6 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion 18.8too small rounded with lip mitad 6 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion scratches 16.5too small rounded with lip Unit G7-North type level surface treatment decorative type exterior use alteration interior use alteration sherd thickness rim diameter rim shape diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none none 4.7too small pointed concave diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion and scratches 7.1too small square diste 1 interior and exterior burnish no decoration dull soot scratches 15.2too small rounded diste 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion cracking 20too small rounded with lip diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion and scratches 7.112 curved diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot scratches 9.116 curved diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration dull soot none 12.732 rounded

PAGE 470

470diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion and dull soot erosion and scratches 19.546 tapered diste 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration pitting erosion 11.950 square diste 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot none 13.450 rounded with lip insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion pitting 21.6no rim no rim insera 1 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration erosion erosion 7.7no rim no rim insera 1 interior burnish/exterior slip no decoration none erosion and pitting 15.2no rim no rim insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration scratches scratches 5.7no rim no rim insera 1 interior burnish/exterior slip multiple appliqu lines erosion erosion and pitting 13.3no rim no rim insera 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration none pitting 8.7too small curved mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion and dull soot erosion 11.8too small rounded mitad 1 interior slip/exterior burnish no decoration erosion cracking 19.1too small rounded with lip mitad 1 interior and exterior slip no decoration erosion cracking 17too small rounded with lip

PAGE 471

471 LIST OF REFERENCES Abbink, J. 1987 A Socio-Cultural Analysis of the Be ta 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. Aešcoly, A. Z. 1936 Yehud habaš ba-siffrut ha-ivrit. ZIon 1:316-36, 411-35. Alt, S. 2001 Cahokian Change and the Authority of Tradition In The Archaeology of Traditions: Agency and Histor y 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 Ameri can Research Press, Santa Fe. Andrn, A. 1998 Between artifacts and texts: historic al archaeology in global perspective Plenum Press, New York. Arom, S. and O. Tourny 1999 The Formal Organization of the Beta Is rael Liturgy Substance and Performance: Musical Structure In The Beta Israel in Ethiopia and I srael: Studies on th e 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 Indi cator of Socioeconomic Status: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of the Gamo of Ethiopia. Journal of Archaeological 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 of Physical Anthropology 20(2):179-182.

PAGE 472

472 Beaudry, M. C. 1988 Documentary Archaeology in the New World Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Beckingham, C. F. and G. W. B. Huntingford (editors) 1954 Some Records of Ethiopia 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 Solomonic Monarchy at Gonder, 16301755: an Institutional Analysis of Kingship in the Christian Kingdom of Ethiopia Boston University. Blady, K. 2000 Jewish Communities in Exotic Places Jason Aronson Inc., Northeale, New Jersey, Jerusalem. Brandt, S. A. and K. J. Weedman 1997 The Ethnoarchaeology of Hide Working a nd Flaked Stone Tool Use in Southern Ethiopia In XIIIth International Conference of Ethiopian 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 T ool Use and Social Identity: An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective In Essays 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.

PAGE 473

473 Childs, S. T. 1991 Style, Technology, and Iron Smelti ng Furnaces in Bantu-Speaking Africa. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10:332-359. Childs, S. T. and D. Killick 1993 Indigenous African Metallu rgy: Nature and Culture. Annual Review of Anthropology 22:317-337. Chittick, N. 1971 The Coast of East Africa In The African Iron Age edited by P. L. Shinnie. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 1974 Kilwa: An Islamic Trading Center on the East African Coast The British Institute in Eastern Africa, Nairobi. Conkey, M. W. 1990 Experimenting with Style in Archaeo logy: Some Historical and Theoretical Issues In The Uses of Style in Archaeology edited by M. Conkey and C. Hastorf, pp. 5-17. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Connah, G. 1975 The Archaeology of Benin Oxford University Press, Oxford. Conti-Rossini 1928 Storia d'Etiopia. Corinaldi, M. 1998 Jewish Identity: the Ca se of Ethiopian Jewry The Hebrew University, Magnes Press, Jerusalem. 2001 The Enigma of Jewish Identity: The Law of Return, Theory and Practice Nevoh Press, Jerusalem. Crummey, D. 1975 Society and Ethnicity in the Politics of Christian Ethiopia during the Zamana Mesafent. International Journal of African Historical Studies 8(2):266-278. 1981 State and Society: 19th Century Ethiopia In Modes of Production in Africa: the Precolonial Era 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.

PAGE 474

474 Curtis, M. C. 2006 Archaeological Investigations in the Gr eater Asmara Area: A Regional Approach in the Central Highlands of Eritrea. Doctoral Dissertation, Un iversity of Florida. Cusick, J. G. 1989 Change in Pottery as a Reflection of Soc ial Change: A Study of Taino Pottery Before and After Contact at the Site of En Bas Saline, Haiti. M.A. Thesis, University of Florida. 1998 Studies in Culture Contact: Intera ction, Culture Change, and Archaeology Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasio nal 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):365-389. Davis, D. D. 1985 Hereditary Emblems: Material Cult ure in the Context of Social Change. Journal of Anthropological 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 Amer ican 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 of Pr ecolonial Africa edited by J. O. Vogel, pp. 545-549. Alta mira Press, Walnut Creek, CA. 2001 An archaeology of Elmina: Africans and Europeans on the Gold Coast, 14001900 Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. DeCorse, C. R. 1989 Material Aspects of Limba, Yal unka, 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.

PAGE 475

475 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 Pa per 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 things forgotten: an ar chaeology of early American life 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 of Anthropological Archaeology 9:352-406. Dietler, M. and I. Herbich 1998 Habitus Techniques and Style: An integr ated Approach to the Social Understanding of Material Culture and Boundaries In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries edited by M. Stark, pp. 232-263. Smiths onian Institution, Washington D.C. 1998 Habitus Techniques, Style: An Integrated A pproach to the Soci al Understanding of Material Culture and Boundaries In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries edited by M. Stark, pp. 232-263. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Dirks, N. 2001 Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern 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 of a Journey through Abyssinia in 1862-1863 Chapman and Hall, London. Dumont, L. 1966 Homo Hierarchicus: Le Systeme des Castes et ses Implications Editions

PAGE 476

476 Gallimard. 1980 Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and its Implications Translated by L. D. Mark Sainsbury, and Basia Gulati. Univ ersity of Chicago Press, Chicago. Earle, T. 1990 Style and Iconography as Legi timation 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. Mifgash LeAvoda Hinuchit Sozialit 18:73-97. Erlikh, H. 1982 Ethiopia and Eritrea During the Struggle fo r Africa: a Political Biography of Ras Alula, 1875-1897 African Studies Center, Michign St ate University, East Lansing, Mich. Fair, L. 2001 Pastimes & Politics: Culture, Community and Identity in Post-Abolition Zanzibar, 1890-1945 Ohio University Press, Athens. Fair, l. 2001 Pastimes & Politics: Culture, Commun ity, and Identity in Post-Abolition Urban Zanzibar, 1890-1945 Ohio University Press, Athens. Flad, M. 1869 The Falashas (Jews) of Abyssinia London. Freeman-Grenville, G. S. P. 1962 The Medieval History of the Coast of Tanganyika, with Special Reference to Recent Archaeological Discoveries Oxford University Press, London and New York. Geertz, C. 1973 The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays Basic Books, New York. Giles-Vernick, T. 2002 Cutting the Vines of the Pa st: Environmental Histories of the Central African 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 edited by M. Stark, pp. 78-106. Smiths onian Institution, Washington D.C.

PAGE 477

477 Guidi, I. e. 1903 Annales Iohannes I, Iyasu I, Bakafa In Corpus Scriptorium Christianorum Orientalium 2 vols. Haaland, R. 2004 Iron Smelting, A Vanishing Tradition: Ethnographic Study of this Craft in SouthWest Ethiopia. Journal of African 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. Halvy, J. 1877 Travels in Abyssinia In Miscellany 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 African 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 Af rican Historical Archaeology In Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa edited by J. O. Vogel, pp. 554-558. A ltamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA. Hallpike, C. R. 1968 The Status of Craftsmen among th e Konso of South-West Ethiopia. Africa: Journal of the Internat ional African Institute 38(3):258-269. Hally, D. J. 1983 Use Alteration of Pottery Vessel Surf aces: an Important Source of Evidence for the Identification of Vessel Function. North American Archaeologist 3:3-26. Hamilton, C. 1998 Terrific majesty: the powers of Shaka 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. 1981 Luo Pottery: Socio-cultural Context and Archaeological Im plications: an Interim Report Institute of African Studies.

PAGE 478

478 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 St udy of Culture Contact Peter Smith, Gloucester, Massachusetts. Hess, R. 1969 Toward a History of the Falasha In Eastern African History edited by D. McCall, pp. 107-132. Frederick A. Praeger, New York. Hirsch, A. 1999 Treating the Diseases of Ethi opian Jewish Children at Hofim. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health 11(2):131-144. 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: Ethnoarchaeolog ical Studies of Material Culture Cambridge 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: th e practice of archaeology and hi story 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 Sudan, 1881-1898 Clarendon Press, Oxford. Horton, M. 1997 East African Hi storical Archaeology In Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa edited by J. O. Vogel, pp. 549-554. Alta mira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

PAGE 479

479 Hosler, D. 1994 The Sounds and Colors of Power: The Sac red Metallurgical 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 a nd 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 th e Classic Period Collapse on the Oaxaca Coast. Journal of Archaeological Method 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 Juda ism or Evolving Ethiopian Tradition. Jewish Quarterly Review 89(1):49-65. 1992 The Beta Israel (Falasha) in Ethiopia: From Earliest Times to the Twentieth Century New York University Press, New York. 1992b Indigenous Categories and the Study of Wo rld Religions in Ethi opia: the Case of the Beta Israel (Falasha). Journal of Religion in Africa 22(3):208-221. 1999 The Literature of the Beta Israel (F alasha): A Survey of a Biblical-Hebraic Tradition. Xristianskij 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 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

PAGE 480

480 Kent, S. 2002 Interethnic Encounters of the First Kind: An Introduction In Ethnicity, HunterGatherers, and the "Other": Asso ciation or Assimilation in Africa edited by S. Kent, pp. 1-27. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Kessler, D. 1982 The Falashas: a Short History of the Ethiopian Jews Frank Cass, London. Killick, D. 2004 Social Constructionist Appr oaches to the Study of Technology. World Archaeology 36(4):571-578. Kirkman, J. S. 1964 Men and Monuments on the East African Coast Praeger, London. 1974 Fort Jesus: a Portuguese Fortress on the East African Coast Clarendon, Oxford. Kobishchanov, Y. 1979 Axum Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park. Kramer, C. 1997 Pottery in Rajasthan: Ethnoarchaeology in Two Indian Cities Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Krempel, V. 1972 Die soziale und wirtschaftliche Stell ung der Falascha in der christlichamharischen Gesellschaft von Nordwest Aethiopien. Ph.D. Dissertation, Free University of Berlin. Kurylo, E. 2002 Paxton Examines post-9/11 American Flag bearing In Emory Report Atlanta. Laguerre, M. S. 1984 American Odyssey: Haitians in New York City Cornell Univeristy Press, Ithaca. Landau, P. S. 1995 The Realm of the Word: Language, Gende r and Christianity in a Southern African Kingdom Heinemann, New Hampshire. Lanning, E. C. 1954 Masaka Hill an Anci ent Center of Worship. Uganda Journal 28:24-30. 1966 Excavations at Mubende Hill. Uganda Journal 30:153-163.

PAGE 481

481 Larick, R. 1990 Warriors and Blacksmiths: Mediating Ethnicity in East African Spears. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10(4):299-331. Leach, E. (editor) 1960 Aspects of Caste in South Indi a, Ceylon, and North-West Pakistan Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lechtman, H. 1984 Andean Value Systems and the De velopment of Preh istoric Metallurgy. Technology and Culture 25:1-36. Lechtman, H. and R. Merrill 1977 Material Culture: Styles, Organization, and the Dynamics of Technology West Publishing, St. Paul, MN. Lemonnier, P. 1984 The Study of Material Culture Today: Toward an Anthropology of Technical Systems. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5:147-186. 1992 Elements for an Anthropology of Technology University of Mi chigan, Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers 88, Ann Arbor, MI. 1993 Introduction In Technical Choices: Transformati on in Material Cultures Since the Neolithic edited by P. Lemonnier, pp. 135. Routledge, London and New York. Leslau, W. 1946 A Falasha Religious Dispute In Proceedings for the American Academy for Jewish Research, vol. 16 Bloch Publishing Company, New York. 1951 Falasha Anthology Yale University Press, New Haven. Lightfoot, K. 1995 Culture Contact Studies: Redefining th e Relationship Between Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology. American Antiquity 60(2):199-217. Little, B. (editor) 1992 Text-Aided Archaeology CRCR Press, Boca Raton, FL. 1994 People with history: an update on hi storical archaeology in the United States. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1(1):5-40. Ludolphus, J. 1682 A New History of Ethiopia London.

PAGE 482

482 Mapunda, B. B. 1997 Patching up Evidence for Iron Working in the Horn. African Archaeological Review 14:107-124. Maquet, J. 1970 Rwanda Castes In Social Stratification in Africa edited by A. Tuden and L. Plotnicov, pp. 93-124. The Free Press, New York. Marvin, C. 2004 True Colors: Myth, Magic, and the American Flag, Lecture Given at Stanford University, 1 March 2004. Mathew, A. J., A. J. Woods and C. Oliver 1991 Spots Before Your Eyes: New Comp arison Charts for Visual Percentage Estimation in Archaeological Material In Recent Developments in Ceramic Petrology, British Museum Occasional Paper 81 edited by A. P. Middleton and I. C. Freestone. British Museum, London. McIntosh, S. K. (editor) 1999 Beyond Chiefdoms: Pathways to Complexity in Africa Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Messing, S. 1982 The Story of the Falashas, "Black Jews" of Ethiopia Balshon Print & Offset Company, Brooklyn. 1999 Some Unpublished Documents Relating to the Twentieth Century History of the Beta Israel in Ethiopia In The Beta Israel in Ethiopia and Is rael: Studies on the Ethiopian Jews edited by T. Parfitt and E. Trevisan Se mi, pp. 61-69. Curzon Press, Great Britain. Miller, D. and C. Tilley (editors) 1984 Ideology, Power and Prehistory Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Morantz, T. 1992 Old Texts, Old Questions: Another Look at the Issue of Continuity and the Early Fur-Trade Period. Canadian Historical Review 73(2):166-193. Negasie, H. 1891 Missionary Journal in Abyssinia. The Jewish Intelligence 7:65-66. Nol Hume, I. 1964 Archaeology: Handmaiden to History. The North Carolina Historical Review 41(2):215-225. 1969 Historical Archaeology Knopf, New York.

PAGE 483

483 Norden, H. 1935 Le Dernier Empire Africain en Abyssinie Payot, Paris. Nudelman, A. 2000 From Research to Intervention: The Input of Anthropology in Sexual Health and AIDS PRevention among Ethiopian Im migrant Adolescents in Israel In The Anthropology of Africa: Challenges fo r the 21st Century edited by P. Nkwi, pp. 33-36. Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference of the Pa n African Anthropological A ssociation, Yaounde, Cameroon. 2001 Zar Spirits in Ethiopia and Israel an d their Influence on Ethiopian Immigrants Health and Population In Population, Health and Developmen t in Africa: Anthropological Perspectives edited by A. B. C. Ochollo-Ayayo, I. K. Nyamongo, L. Ikamari and T. Ateng, pp. 146-153. Population Studies and Research Institute and UNFPA, Nairobi, Kenya. Orser, C. E. J. 1996 A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World Plenum Press, London. Ortiz, F. 1940 Contrapunteo cubano del tobaco y azucar Ediciones Ciencias Sociales, Havana. 1995 Cuban Counterpoint: Tobacco and Sugar. Translated by Harriet de Onis Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina. Pankhurst, A. 1999 'Caste' in Africa: The Evidence from South-Western Ethi opia Reconsidered. Africa: Journal of the International African Institute 69(4):485-509. Pankhurst, R. 1968 Economic History of Ethiopia, 1800-1935 Haile Sellassie I University Press, Addis Ababa. 1969 Notes for a History of Gonder. Ethiopia Observer 12(3):177-227. 1982 History of Ethiopian Towns: From the Mi ddle Ages to the Early Nineteenth Century Franz, Steiner, Ve rlag, GMBH, Wiesbaden. 1990 A Social History of Ethiopia: the Northern and Central Highlands from Early Medieval Times to the Rise of Emperor Tewodros II Institute of Ethiopian Studies, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa. 1992 The Falashas, or Judaic Ethiopians, in their Christian Ethiopian Setting. African Affairs 91:567-582. 1998 Ethiopian Dynastic Marriage and