Rova Tannurs Tannur Concentrations and Centralised Bread Production at Tell Beydar

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/260311118
Tannurs, Tannur Concentrations and Centralised Bread Production at Tell

Beydar and Elsewhere: An Overview
Conference Paper · March 2014
CITATIONS READS
5 1,857
1 author:
Elena Rova
Università Ca' Foscari Venezia
68 PUBLICATIONS 185 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Georgian-Italian Shida Kartli archaeological project View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Elena Rova on 30 March 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

HANE / M – Vol. XIV
——————————————————————
History of the Ancient Near East / Monographs

Editor-in-Chief: Frederick Mario Fales
Editor: Giovanni-Battista Lanfranchi
——————————————————————
ISBN
978-88-95672-11-3
A publication grant from

the Italian Ministry for University and Research (M.I.U.R.)
is acknowledged for this volume
© S.A.R.G.O.N. Editrice e Libreria

Via Induno 18B, I-35134 Padova
SAR.GON@libero.it
Prima edizione: Padova, marzo 2014
Proprietà letteraria riservata
Distribuzione / Distributed by:

CASALINI Libri S.p.a., Via B. da Maiano 3, I-50014,
Fiesole – Firenze http://www.casalini.it
Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana 46590-0275 USA

http://www.eisenbrauns.com
Stampa a cura di / Printed by:

Centro Copia Stecchini – Via S. Sofia 58 – I-35121, Padova
History of the Ancient Near East / Monographs – XIV
——————————————————————
PALEONUTRITION
AND FOOD PRACTICES
IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST
TOWARDS A MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH
Edited by
LUCIO MILANO
in cooperation with
Francesca Bertoldi
——————————————————————
S.A.R.G.O.N. Editrice e Libreria
Padova 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vii LUCIO MILANO, Introduction

Approaching Food from a Bio-archaeological Perspective
1 GEORGE WILLCOX, Food in the Early Neolithic of the Near East
11 THEYA MOLLESON, Food Processing at Abu Hureyra
25 MICHAEL SCHULTZ, THIEDE H. SCHMIDT-SCHULTZ, The Role of Anaemia, Scurvy and Rickets in
Bronze Age Populations
43 HOLGER SCHUTKOWSKI, MICHAEL P. RICHARDS, Middle Bronze Age Subsistence at Sidon,
Lebanon
53 ARKADIUSZ SOŁTYSIAK, Temporal Changes in the Frequency of Dental Caries in the Khabour
Basin (North-eastern Syria)
Case Studies
Mersin-Yumuktepe
71 ISABELLA CANEVA, The Context of the Origins of Domestication at Mersin (Turkey)
85 GIROLAMO FIORENTINO, MILENA PRIMAVERA, VALENTINA CARACUTA, Archaeological
Investigations at Mersin-Yumuktepe: Food Habits from Neolithic to Medieval Ages
95 CLAUDIA MINNITI, The Role of Animals in the Economy of South-Eastern Anatolia: Food and
Commensalism at Mersin-Yumuktepe
109 GIANNI SIRACUSANO Subsistence Economy in Southern Anatolia and in the Upper Euphrates
Area
Tell Beydar / Nabada
121 ELENA ROVA, Centralized Bread Production at Tell Beydar and Other Sites: Some Preliminary
Remarks
171 LUCA MARIGLIANO, Plastered Basins for Food Processing? Some Examples from Upper
Mesopotamia
187 BEA DE CUPERE, Animals at Tell Beydar
215 FRANCESCA BERTOLDI, EMILIANO CARNIERI, FULVIO BARTOLI, LUCIO MILANO, Paleonutritio-
nal Evidence from Tell Beydar: the Human Sample and the Historical Sources
Tell Mishrife / Qatna
237 DANIELE MORANDI BONACOSSI, Early Bronze Age Storage Techniques at Mishrifeh, Central-
Western Syria
253 ALESSANDRO CANCI, FULVIO BARTOLI, Reconstruction of Health Status and Dietary Habits of
Human Remains from Tell Mishrife/Qatna, Syria
Food for Travelling: Investigating Travel Provisions in the Ancient Near East
261 GEBHARD SELZ, Travel, Travel Provisions and Food Transportation in the Early Dynastic
Period
281 LUCIO MILANO, Eating on the Road: Travel Provisions in the Ebla Archives
297 FRANCESCO POMPONIO, Were Messengers Eating Better Food at Urusagrig?
309 CÉCILE MICHEL, Eating on the Way in Upper Mesopotamia and Anatolia at the Beginning of the
Second Millennium BC
327 PAOLA CORÒ, Travel Provisions in Neo- and Late Babylonian Period: ṣidit ilānī and ṣidit ṣābim
Food Economy, Technology and Symbolism
339 HAGAN BRUNKE, On the Role of Fruit and Vegetables as Food in the Ur III Period
353 BIANCA MARIA ZONTA, Food and Death at the Ur Royal Cemetery
375 NICOLETTA BELLOTTO, Names Indicating Bread in the Ritual Texts from Emar
385 SIMONETTA PONCHIA, Institutional Roles and Professions in the Management of Food
Resources in the Neo-Assyrian Empire
413 FREDERICK MARIO FALES, MONICA RIGO, Food Practices in the Assyrian Military Camps
TANNURS, TANNUR CONCENTRATIONS AND CENTRALISED BREAD PRODUCTION
AT TELL BEYDAR AND ELSEWHERE:
1
AN OVERVIEW
Elena Rova
Introduction
Clay bread-ovens of cylindrical or slightly conical shape (Arabic tannūr, plur. tanānir, henceforward
“tannur”, “tannurs”) are well known to the community of Near Eastern archaeologists, since structures
of this kind have been present in all the geographical regions of the Near East in all historical phases
from the Neolithic down to the late Islamic period. As a matter of fact, it seldom occurs that no such
installation is brought to the light during an excavation season in the area. In spite of their frequency
and overall homogeneity, or maybe just because of these, they are generally devoted little attention by
the excavators: they are often poorly excavated, and rarely described in any detail in the relevant pub-
2
lications.
The obvious resemblance these installations bear with modern village bread-ovens still in use all
over the Near and Middle East is often remarked upon by the excavators, and illustrated by colourful
1
This contribution was written in the framework of the PRIN 2003 research project “Food in the Ancient
Near East: historical-geographical aspects, economic strategies and social reflexes”. The participation of the Ca’
Foscari University – Venice in the Tell Beydar excavation was funded by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Ministry of University and Scientific and Technological Research, and the University of Venice. We thank Prof.
Lucio Milano, Dr. Noor Mulder and Prof. David I. Owen, who provided useful references and unpublished infor-
mation on the subject.
2
The exception are a few contributions (van der Steen 1991; McQuitty 1993-94, 60-69), which examine
tannur distribution at specific sites of Iron Age and later Jordan. These provide a detailed description of the rele-
vant structures and a list of excavated parallels, mainly from the Syro-Palestinian region. Worth mentioning are
also a study by H. Crawford (1981) about different fire installations at Abu Salabikh, which includes a descrip-
tion of the site’s tannurs, and a recent study by. A. Otto about the Late Bronze Age site of Tell Bazi on the Syrian
Euphrates, with a general description of tannurs and discussion about their function and location within the set-
tlement (Otto 2006, 72-74 et passim). In addition, occasional descriptions of individual tannurs can be found in
recent excavation reports (among many others, Mazzoni 2005, 87-89: Iron age tannurs from Tell Afis in Syria;
Parker et al. 2006, 77-79: Late Chalcolithic tannurs from Kenan Tepe in the Turkish Upper Tigris region; Matney
– Rainville 2005, passim: Neo-Assyrian tannurs from Ziyaret Tepe in the same region.
122 Elena Rova
3 4
pictures, normally taken at the nearby village (Fig. 1). With a few notable exceptions, however, the
plentiful ethnographic material available has not been fully exploited by archaeologists. In addition, no
systematic classification of the different variants of tannurs and of their distribution in time and space
has hitherto been carried out, while, on the other hand, interesting observations made on the field
about tannur stratigraphy, technology, location and associations have remained rather random and not
been adequately searched for parallels.
The discovery of a concentration of tannurs in the area of the mid-third millennium BC “Northern
Building” at Tell Beydar in north-eastern Syria recently excavated by the team of the Ca’ Foscari Uni-
versity of Venice (Milano – Rova 2006; in press; Milano – Rova – Sténuit 2005, 67-68), offers us in
the first place the opportunity for defining these installations more precisely, for describing their dif-
ferent features and technology, and for comparing them with those of modern bread-ovens in the re-
gion and with information drawn from ancient textual sources. Furthermore, it provides the occasion
for some general considerations about the location of tannurs within the ancient and modern settle-
ments and about their association with different types of buildings and installations. We will focus our
attention, in particular, on comparative evidence for tannur concentrations in public buildings of the
third millennium BC and of other periods, which, like in the case of Tell Beydar, could suggest cen-
tralised bread production.
Tannurs and other types of bread-ovens in the Near East

The word under which these installations are known was already present in ancient Akkadian (tinūru)
5
(CAD T, 420-421, s.v. tinūru) and is still used in a variety of modern, Semitic and non-Semitic lan-
guages: Arabic tannūr, tennūr, Aramaic tannūrā, Hebrew tannūr, Persian tanūra, Turkish tandır, and,
6
from this, Urdu tandur, tandoor.
According to recent ethnographic research — e.g. by Noor Mulder-Heymans (1997, 2002), Teresa
7
de Castro (2005) — today the term defines different types of installations, both fixed and portable,
which have the following features in common: 1) they belong to a domestic, mainly rural environment
(i.e., not to large scale, industrial food production); 2) they are primarily used for baking bread; and, in
particular, 3) a special type of bread, either leavened or unleavened, of flat round shape (~ubz tannūr).
The bread loaves are baked by leaning them directly to the oven’s wall until they begin to come away
from it, and are then ready to eat.
The most common type is a rather small clay structure (its height does not exceed 125 cm and is of-
8
ten less then 1 m, while base diameter normally varies between 40 and 60 cm) of cylindrical — or
3
For some examples, see Fiorina 1985, 73-74, fig. on p. 170; Martín Galán – Al-Othman 2003, 508-512,
figs. 4, 5; Parker et al. 2006, 116, fig. 7.
4
See especially McQuitty 1984; 1993-94; van der Steen 1991; Mulder-Heymans 1997; 2002; more syn-
thetically, also Aurence 1981, 251.
5
See also Salonen 1964, 101-106. According to the Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary (http://enlil. mu-
seum.upenn.edu/epsd/), Sumerian used different terms: dilim (wr. dilim3), duruna (wr. imduruna2; imti-nu-ur;
durunax(ψKU.KUψ), immindu (wr. immindu; immindu2; im-tu-na), and ulal (wr. ulal) to define the same type of in-
stallation (see also Salonen 1964, 101-106; Von Soden 1959; Schawe 1932).
6
Salonen 1964, 101, with further literature.
7
The most detailed description of modern Near Eastern tannurs can still be found in Dalman 1935, 88-126
(with a special emphasis on Palestine); for Syrian tannurs, see also Sweet 1960, 121-122 et passim; Martín Galán
– Al-Othman 2003, 508-512; for southern Iraq, Nissen 1968, 110; for Iran, Wulff 1966, 292-293.
8
Mulder-Heymans 1997, 51; 2002, 210, mentions a larger type (190 cm high, with an opening of 70 cm),
which is used in bakeries and restaurants in Syria.
Tannurs, Tannur Concentrations and Centralised Bread Production at Tell Beydar 123
better slightly conical, or beehive shape (Fig. 2). The cone is separately built by specialists based in the
9
same or in a nearby village who, interestingly enough, are generally women, and then transported to
10
its final location. The wall is a few cm thick and is made of local clay, tempered with different mate-
11
rials (chaff, cow dung, goat or sheep hair, salt, burlap, grit and small pebbles, etc.). The tannur is
gradually built, starting from the base, in coils or in ca 10-20 cm high loaf-shaped portions, which are
allowed to dry in the sun until hard before another portion is added; the whole procedure is said to take
12
up to three days. A large opening is left on the top of the cone, while a smaller hole for ventilation is
made near its base. Once dry, the structure is transferred to its final location, which is normally —
13
though not always — an open area either inside a family house space (usually the courtyard or the
entrance hall), or outside of it, in a make-shift shelter on the side of a street or alley.
14
Normally it is leaning to a wall, and fixed into a built-in “superstructure” (see Fig. 1), which is
15
built by the tannur’s owners. This may have a foundation of stones, which represents the tannur’s bot-
tom. It is made of mudbricks (rarely also of stones), and then packed with pisé and covered with a
thick clay plaster, in order to create a working surface on which the bread leaves and other tools (a
bowl of water, etc.) can be laid. The cone is normally placed slightly inclined in the superstructure, so
16
that the opening above will not be horizontal. Once the building is completed, a dung fire is lit inside
the tannur and left to burn there for several hours before the tannur can be used for baking bread.
17
More than one tannurs can be placed near each other within a single “superstructure” (see Fig. 1,
18
b). The latter, however, can also be missing, and the oven can be standing free, its bottom being just
slightly deepened into the ground. Finally, in some cases the tannur is completely inserted into a large
hole, and only its top emerges from the level of the floor (Fig. 3).
19
9
Mulder-Heymans 1997, 50-51; 2002, 209-211; Martín Galán – Al-Othman 2003, 509-511.
10
According to Dalman 1935, 88, wall thickness amounts to 2-3 cm.
11
Dalman 1935, 88-89; McQuitty 1984, 259; 1993-94, 57; van der Steen 1991, 138; Mulder-Heymans
1997, 48-49, 51; 2002, 204-205, 210; Martín Galán – Al-Othman 2003, 511.
12
Dalman 1935, 88-89; van der Steen 1991, 138-139; Mulder-Heymans 1997, 51; 2002, 210; Martín Galán
– Al-Othman 2003, 511; see also Parker et al. 2006, 78.
13
Roofed “oven-houses” hosting tannurs and other types of clay ovens are mentioned in Dalman 1935, 89-
90; McQuitty 1984, 261-265, with special reference to Jordan and Egypt; van der Steen 1991, 141 (with refer-
ence to Jordan); Mulder-Heymans 1997, 50-51; 2002, 208-209, 211 (with reference to Syria).
14
Dalman 1935, 91-95; Nissen 1968, 109-110; Sweet 1960, 121-122; Fiorina 1985, 73; van der Steen 1991,
141-142; Mulder-Heymans 1997, 51-53; 2002, 209, 211-215; De Castro 2005, § 4.
15
Dalman 1935, 92; Nissen 1968, 110; Sweet 1960, 121-122; Crawford 1981, 108-109, fig. 5; Van der
Steen 1991, 139; Martín Galán – Al-Othman 2003, 509-512; Parker et al. 2006, 78, fig. 7. This kind of tannur is
called “reinforced tannur” in Crawford 1981.
16
Some sources (Mulder-Heymans 1997, 51, photo 8; 2002, 211; Martín Galán – Al-Othman 2003, 511-
521) report the use of salt, or salted water, for making the tannur’s walls better adhere to the superstructure, and
for strengthening them.
17
Martín Galán – Al-Othman 2003, 511-512; see also Mulder-Heymans 1997, 49; 2002, 206, fig. 5, for a
different kind of bread oven. According to Dalman 1935, 88, factory-made tannurs were fired in pottery kilns be-
fore use.
18
See, e.g., the item illustrated in Parker et al. 2006, 78, fig. 7. For an archaeological example of the Islamic
period, see McQuitty 1993-94, 61-63.
19
This type of tannur, which is always located inside the houses, seems to be especially typical of the moun-
tain areas in Iran (Wulff 1966, 292; Bromberger 1974, 302, 309, pl. V, b; van der Steen 1991, 137), but examples
are reported from the Levantine area as well (Dalman 1935, 88-91; figs. 18-19; see also van der Steen 1991,
141).
124 Elena Rova
20
The fuel (which can be brushwood, straw or dung cakes) is introduced from the top and lit. When
the tannur’s walls are hot enough, bread dough, flipped into flat “pancakes”, is introduced from the
top, after wetting one’s hand with water or oil, and stuck to the interior wall until baked. After each
use, the ashes remaining inside are pressed down on the tannur’s floor; when they rise above a certain
21
level, they are scraped and removed by way of the lower hole . When a tannur cracks, or breaks, re-
22
pairing it is useless; therefore, it is simply abandoned, and a new one is usually built nearby.
Normally each village house has its own tannur (or tannurs), but cases are also reported of commu-
23
nal tannurs which serve the needs of several neighbouring households. With the exception of “indus-
trial” bakeries located in the towns, baking in the tannur is done exclusively by women.
As we have seen, everyday bread-baking is the standard use of tannurs of this type. They may be
occasionally used also for cooking meat, fish, cakes, legumes and rise (while meat can be grilled on
24
the tannur’s top or bottom, in the remaining cases a pot is placed over its top hole); however, differ-
20
Our sources (Dalman 1935, 106; Sweet 1960, 122; McQuitty 1984, 265; 1993-94, 58-60, fn. 4; Fiorina
1985, 73; Mulder-Heymans 1997; 2002, passim; Martín Galán – Al-Othman 2003, 511; De Castro 2005) men-
tion a large variety of fuels, including wood, roots, coal and olive pulp, the most common ones being however
brushwood and animal dung. According to Mulder-Heymans 1997, 53; 2002, 220, tannurs require a larger
amount of fuel in comparison with other types of rural ovens (e.g. tawabeen, for which see infra) and are pref-
erably heated with brushwood. McQuitty 1993-94, 72, fn. 4, confirms that dung as a heath source does not seem
to be of such importance for tannurs as with tawabeen, and suggests that, in the Islamic period at least, the
former “were probably preferred in urban situations where space and fuel were at a premium”.
21
Sweet 1960, 122; McQuitty 1984, 261; Mulder-Heymans 2002, 215; Martín Galán – Al-Othman 2003,
512. As noticed by van der Steen 1991, 149, this operation may result in a hollowing out of the tannur’s bottom.
22
As observed by Fiorina 1985, 73, this may explain the presence of different tannurs in the same house
courtyard. According to our sources, the lifetime of a modern tannur may vary between two-three and up to forty
years, depending on how it is protected from the rain, and on how often it is used and repaired. In particular,
different authors report the following ranges: 3-15 years (McQuitty 1984, 265); 7-10 years (McQuitty 1993-94,
63); 10 years for small domestic tannurs, up to 25 for larger ones (Mulder-Heymans 1997, 51; 2002, 210). The
same author (2002, 210) reports a 15 years old working tannur, which was however used only on special oc-
casions, and a 5 years old one which was about to be replaced (ibid., 216). Finally, van der Steen 1991, 141, re-
ports an alleged lifetime of about twenty years, but notices that villagers in the Khabur area of Syria used to
replace their tannurs every two or three years.
23
McQuitty 1984, 265; 1993-94, 70 (Jordan and Palestine); van der Steen 1991, 142-143 (Jordan, Syria and
Palestine, with possible archaeological examples); Parker et al. 2006, 78 (south-eastern Turkey). Interestingly
enough, although communal tannurs can be larger then those used by an individual family, in some cases at least
it was noticed that “although one oven is used by up to seven households today, its size does not differ”
(McQuitty 1993-94, 70). Present day practices show a wide range of variety in this respect, which includes the
following cases: “village bakeries” where a single baker bakes bread for different families (Mulder-Heymans
1997, 50; 2002, 209), communal bakehouses used by a number of families in bad weather in addition to individ-
ual tannurs in the courtyard of each family compound for everyday use (Crawford 1981, 108); and urban
“neighbourhood bakeries” (Mulder-Heymans 1997, 51; 2002, 210; Pollock 1999, 131) which sell bread, but to
which families can also bring their own dough to be baked (see also McQuitty 1993-94 for similar situations
documented by textual evidence for the Islamic period). Finally, some sources mention the case of open-air
tannurs concentrations used by groups of nomads or seasonal workers camping nearby (van der Steen 1991, 142;
Mulder-Heymans 1997, 52; 2002, 215) and of rows of tannurs deliberately built on the occasion of marriages
(Otto 2006, 73, fn. 210).
24
Dalman 1935, 110-111; Bromberger 1974, 302, fn. 9; Sweet 1960, 127; Mulder-Heymans 1997, 53; 2002,
199, et passim; De Castro 2005; Crawford 1981, 108, 114; Parker et al. 2006, 78; Otto 2006, 73. According to all
these sources, these are however secondary activities, to which the hot tannur can be put after bread has been
baked in it.
25
ent types of installations are normally preferred for cooking these other types of food. This was
probably the case also in ancient times: as a matter of fact, if on the one hand tinūru-ovens were occa-
sionally mentioned in Akkadian texts in connection with meat and fish-cooking, date-ripening and
26
preparation of medicaments, there are other Akkadian terms mentioning different types of cooking
27
ovens: utūnu/atūnu, kīru/kūru, kirma~~u, some of which have also been tentatively identified in the
28
archaeological record by M.-Th. Barrelet.
To come back to modern tannurs, the type of oven we have described above is by no means the
only bread-baking installation presently used in the area. First of all there are also smaller, portable
“tannurs”, for both outdoor or indoor-use, similar in shape and use to the previous ones (van der Steen
29
1991, 138; De Castro 2005): the tinūru muttalliku mentioned in Akkadian texts may have belonged to
a similar type. There are also, however, installations of different shape and/or material, which are also
used for bread-baking, and therefore have occasionally been called tannurs or confused with tannurs in
the scientific literature (Fig. 4).
30
The modern Palestinian bread-oven (more properly called tabun) (Fig. 4, b), e.g., generally con-
sists of a large clay pan with a hole on the top, which is placed upside down upon small stones with
dung-fuel or brushwood heaped around and over the pan. The dung is kindled and the bread then laid
upon the heated stones under the pan, on the oven’s bottom. Also common, especially among mobile
31
pastoralists, are portable metal bread-ovens in the shape of a large pan (named sağ) (Fig. 4, c): in this
case the bread loaf is baked on their heated, inverted bottom. Finally there are vaulted clay ovens open
at the front, in which the bread is baked on a horizontal metal plate placed over the fire, ca. half way
32 33
up the oven’s wall (wagdiah/arsah) (Fig. 4, d), and large domed brick-ovens (furn) (Fig. 4, e).
While the last type is normally used by professional bakers rather than by private families, the pref-
erence for one of the remaining types is rather linked to geographical, and/or to socio-economic fac-
tors; while sağ ovens are preferred by mobile pastoralists everywhere, in rural villages tannurs are pre-
ferred in Iraq and in northern Syria, while tawabeen definitely prevail in southern Syria, Palestine and
Jordan, and wagdiah/arsah are attested, though with lesser frequency, in these same regions.
25
For different cooking installations in the present-day Near East, see, among others, Bromberger 1974
(“fosses a cuisson”); Sweet 1960, 118-134, passim. More specifically, for different types of contemporary bread
ovens, see infra.
26
Salonen 1964, 102; CAD T, 420-421, s.v. tinūru.
27
Salonen 1964, 104-106, 115; Bottéro 1980-83, 281-286.
28
Barrelet 1974. In particular, this author (ibid., 268-275) identifies the term kirma~~u, “large oven”, as
present, e.g., in public buildings, with a type of archaeologically attested large domed brick oven. For a review of
different fire installations in Near Eastern archaeology, and for problems relating to their interpretation as cook-
ing facilities, see also Aurenche 1981, 246-254; Crawford 1981; Tunca 1984, 171-172, 174-177.
29
Schawe 1932, 387; Salonen 1964, 103; Bottéro 1980-83, 282. The example from Iron Age Tell Deir Àlla
illustrated in van der Steen 1991, fig. 1, may belong to a similar type.
30
Dalman 1935, 74-88, fig. 12, 2, 3; fig. 13; McQuitty 1984, 259-261, fig. 2; 1993-94, 55, fig. 5; Mulder-
Heymans 1997, 49-50; 2002, 199, fig. 1B; 204-209; De Castro 2005.
31
Dalman 1935, 39-73, figs. 9-10; fig. 12, 1; Wulff 1966, 291, fig. 410; Sweet 1960, 132-133; van der Steen
1991, 135; Mulder-Heymans 1997, 52; 2002, 199-200, fig. 1C; 217-220.
32
Dalman 1935, 138-141, fig. 17, 1; figs. 26-27; McQuitty 1984, 261, fig. 4; 1993-94, 56, fig. 5; Mulder-
Heymans 1997, 50, 52; 2002, 200, fig. 1D; 214.
33
Dalman 1935, 127-138; see also De Castro 2005.
126 Elena Rova
34
It has been noticed, however, that different types of bread oven can be used at the same time and
even by the very same family. Furthermore, the shift from one type to the other can occur rather
35
quickly, and apparently depends on both the degree of mobility of the human group, and on its eco-
36
nomic possibilities, where fuel availability seems to be the most important factor at issue, so that, as
noticed by McQuitty (1993-94, 72), the use of a specific bread-oven type can hardly be considered as a
marker of a specific ethnicity.
From a diachronic point of view, although the question has never been subjected to a systematic
study, it seems that tannurs were ubiquitous everywhere in the Near East until the Early Iron Age,
37
when the first tawabeen made their appearance. By the post-Byzantine period, a trend is evident,
38
whose consequences are visible until the present times: while in the Levantine regions they prolifer-
ated and thus became the standard oven type, further to the East, in Syro-Mesopotamia and beyond,
39
tannurs remained the prevailing type.
Tannurs in the archaeological evidence: varieties, significant features, contents and associated
finds
From the previous discussion, is can safely be concluded that bread-ovens found at archaeological ex-
cavations of pre-Islamic sites all over the Near East, which we are concentrating on in the following,
almost invariably belong to the tannur type as we have described it in the beginning, or better, to dif-
40
ferent variants of this, still to be fully explored in their details.
The earliest known examples date back to the Ceramic Neolithic period (VII-VI millennium BC);
41
as one can notice, they can be located both in inside and in outside spaces. Since then, as we said at
the beginning, their presence is ubiquitous until the present time.
34
See e.g. Sweet 1960, 133 (tannur and sağ used in the same Syrian village by peasants and respectively
pastoralists); Mulder-Heymans 1997, 50 (tabun, wagdiah and tannur used in the same village of southern Syria
for different types of bread baking).
35
For instance, “a settled Bedu family will start to use a tabun as soon as they move to a permanent village”
(McQuitty 1993-94, 72).
36
The growing popularity of tawabeen and sağ ovens over tannurs, e.g., has been ascribed by different au-
thors to the necessity of using fuels other than wood (especially dung) (McQuitty 1993-94, 60; Mulder-Heymans
1997, 52-53; 2002, 217-220). On the other hand, according to McQuitty 1984, 265, “lack of available dung is the
most frequently given reason in northern Jordan for the demise of tawabeen”.
37
According to McQuitty 1984, 261, the earliest example of tabun at Pella in Jordan dates back to the Early
Iron Age. This seems to be, however, a rather isolated case, since, e.g., all among the 51 Iron Age bread ovens
from Tell Deir Àlla (van der Steen 1991) have been identified as tannurs. For archaeological and textual sources
about Iron Age Palestine, which also suggest an almost exclusive use of tannurs, see also Dalman 1935, 96-104.
38
See McQuitty 1993-94, 70-72, with reference to both archaeological and textual sources of the Islamic
period. According to this author (ibid., 60-69), in the Early Islamic period in Jordan tannurs may have been pre-
ferred in urban, tawabeen in rural environments. For textual sources of the Islamic period, see also Dalman 1935,
80-81.
39
On the other hand, the use of metal sağ ovens appears to be a mainly modern phenomenon (Dalman 1935,
41-45, refers, however, that this type of bread-oven was known, though not common, in the first centuries AD),
and no clear evidence could be collected about the frequency of wagdiah/arsah in pre-modern times (ibid., 140-
141), although an example was recovered from the Iron Age levels at Tell Deir Àlla (McQuitty 1984, 261).
40
As a matter of fact, standardised forms for the description of these installations, which could be of help in
creating a typology of them — as proposed e.g. by van der Steen 1991, 136, table 1; McQuitty 1993-94, 73, Ap-
pendix A; Mulder-Heymans 2002, 202-203, Table 1 — have not been systematically adopted by the excavators
and/or used for a general study of them.
41
Aurenche 1981, 251-254, with references to further literature.
A comparative examination of tannur descriptions from excavation reports of different areas and
42
periods resulted in the discovery of a number of recurrent features, but also of significant differences
among them, which can be positively compared with those of present-days tannurs. At this preliminary
stage of analysis and with a few possible exceptions, no clear pattern in spatial/and or chronological
distribution of these different features emerged. The overall impression is therefore that there existed,
since the earliest times, a wide range of technical solutions concerning the building and the location of
tannurs, among which a choice was made in each case on the basis of the individual situation and
needs.
As concerns dimensions, it must be considered that only in exceptional cases tannurs are preserved
43
up to their original top on archaeological excavations (Fig. 5) — in these cases the height is said to be
up to 100 cm. In most cases, however, only their lower part is preserved, in the shape of a clay ring
44
which is usually not higher than 20-40, though it can occasionally reach 60-80 cm. Base diameter is
rather variable. On most sites tannurs appear to be rather small — their diameters vary along a contin-
45
uum between 35-40 and 70-80 cm. It seems possible that tannur diameters were slightly larger in
46
average (60-100 cm) in north-eastern Syria and Iraq, than in the Levant, but this hypothesis would
need further analysis to be confirmed. There are, however, also cases of significantly larger tannurs,
47
with diameters up to 140 cm. It remains to be investigated whether the latter may be connected with
communal — or “industrial” — as opposed to domestic use, like in the modern examples mentioned in
48
fn. 8, supra.
The shape of the cone does not differ significantly from that of modern tannurs, and fabric and
manufacture techniques, in the few cases in which they have been specifically analysed and described
(see, e.g., van der Steen 1991, 138), seem to be similar as well. Wall thickness is also comparable to
42
In spite of the frequency with which tannurs are recovered, detailed descriptions of them are rather rare.
Since, however, they are distributed among a huge number of excavation reports, a systematic search for them
was impossible. The examples mentioned in the following are therefore the result of a more or less casual selec-
tion of sources. If not equally representative of all areas and periods, we consider it wide enough to represent a
significant sample of the attested range of variability.
43
For some examples see, e.g., Oates – Oates – McDonald 2001, 63, figs. 76, 78, from Tell Brak (third mil-
lennium BC Syria); Mulder-Heymans 1997, 48, photo 1, 201, fig. 2, from Tell Hadar (Early Iron Age Levant);
van der Steen 1991, 137, fig. 1, from Tell Deir Àlla (Iron Age Levant).
44
van der Steen 1991, 137, table 1 (based on 51 tannurs from Tell Deir Àlla, Iron Age Levant). For the sake
of comparison, see Parker et al. 2006, 78 (Kenan Tepe, Late Chalcolithic Turkey); Routledge 1998, 244 (Tell
Gudeda, third millennium BC Syria).
45
Cf. for instance van der Steen 1991, 136, table 1 (51 tannurs from Tell Deir Àlla, Iron Age Levant: 35-70
cm) with Routledge 1998, 244 (Tell Gudeda, third millennium BC Syria: 40-80 cm).
46
For instance, for II millennium BC Upper Mesopotamia, Dezzi Bardeschi 1998, 39-40, gives diameters
between 80 and 100 cm, while Otto 2006, 72, gives an average diameter of 75 cm for tannurs at Tell Bazi (Late
Bronze Age, Syrian Euphrates area). These figures would correspond to an impressionistic evaluation of avail-
able evidence from third millennium north-eastern Syria by the present author (see also infra, for Tell Beydar).
According to van der Steen 1991, 144, there is a tendency, at Tell Deir Àlla at least, for smaller tannurs to be
located inside rooms; this could suggest that they were “winter ovens” used as an oven and as a stove at the same
time. In this case, it would probably not be by chance that Mesopotamian tannurs are generally described as
being located in courtyards or open spaces.
47
This is the case, for instance, of a Hassuna period tannur from Yarim Tepe I in northern Iraq (Yoffee _
Clark 1993, 84; see also Aurenche 1981, 251); and of a Late Chalcolithic tannur from Kenan Tepe in Turkey
(Parker et al. 2006, 78).
48
On the other hand, as discussed supra, fn. 23, even nowadays tannur size is not necessarily linked to their
communal use.
128 Elena Rova
49
that of modern tannurs (2-3 cm), even though 4 cm thick walls are occasionally reported. The only
explicit description of the tannur cone surfaces we were able to find (van der Steen 1991, 137-139, for
Iron Age Tell Deir Àlla) describes what are apparently standard features: the inner wall, on the surface
50
of which bread loaves were baked, was carefully smoothed and occasionally slightly polished,
51
whereas the outer wall was more carelessly smoothed and sometimes covered with a slip; it has to be
considered, anyway, that in many cases the outer surface of the cone was not directly visible, but was
inserted into a superstructure, or covered by a thick layer of different materials (see infra).
A significant difference with modern tannurs concerns the presence of a vent hole on the cone’s
bottom: as we saw, this a standard feature of the latter, but is normally not found on archaeological
52
examples. That this device was known in antiquity is however proved by a few examples in which it
53
is undoubtedly present (see Fig. 5).
Tannur bottoms show a large degree of variability. Like for present-day examples, the presence of a
54
“foundation” of stones is often reported (this may have had the additional function to improve heath
retention inside the oven); in a few examples, the stones are said to be mixed with mud-brick frag-
55
ments or pottery sherds. In many cases, the ground was simply levelled and a thin layer of clay was
56
laid on its top before placing the tannur cone on it; finally, there were also instances where the cone
57
was simply placed on the top of an ash layer from an earlier tannur, and instances in which the
58
original bottom had been hollowed out while removing ashes from inside the tannur.
Equally variable appears to be the setting of the tannur in relation to the floor of the room. In her
study of the Iron Age tannurs at Tell Deir Àlla, van der Steen (1991, 139-141, figs. 2-5) recognised
four different settings: a) “level” (i.e. directly on the floor’s surface), b) on the top of a low mud-brick
platform, c) “dug-in” (i.e. the tannur bottom is slightly deepened into the ground), and d) placed into a
deeper “work-pit”, on the edge of which the women could sit while operating the tannur (Fig. 6).
49
van der Steen 1991, 136, 139, cf. table 1. Interestingly enough, the characteristic thickness of tannur
walls, which sets them apart from those of pottery vessels, was mentioned by ancient textual sources as well (see
Salonen 1964, 103-104).
50
Interesting in this respect is the recovery of starch granules from the interior lining of an Egyptian work-
men’s village tannur (Samuel 1999, 131).
51
A peculiar treatment of the outer surface, which showed groups of parallel finger marks running in differ-
ent direction, seems hitherto attested only at Tell Beydar (see infra).
52
In most cases our sources just do not mention the presence of a vent hole, but sometimes its absence is
specifically stated: see Parker et al. 2006, 78 (a late Chalcolithic tannur from Kenan Tepe in Turkey); van der
Steen 1991, 137 (Iron age tannurs from Tell Deir Àlla in Jordan); Mulder-Heymans 1997, 48; 2002, 201 (an
Early Iron Age tannur from Tell Hadar in Israel).
53
Two late third millennium tannurs from Tell Brak in north-eastern Syria (Oates – Oates – McDonald
2001, 61, fig. 78); a Middle Bronze age one from Jerico (van der Steen 1991, 137, with reference to previous lit-
erature); a Late Bronze one from Tell Bazi in Syria (Otto 2006, 72) and an Iron age one from Tell Deir Àlla (van
der Steen 1991, 137).
54
We will limit ourselves to just a few references, from different periods and geographical areas: Yoffee _
Clark 1993, 84; cf. Aurenche 1981, 251 (Yarim Tepe 1, Northern Iraq, Ceramic Neolithic period); Aurenche
1981, 252 (Hacilar, Turkey, Ceramic Neolithic period); Routledge 1998, 244 (Tell Gudeda, north-eastern Syria,
third millennium BC); van der Steen 1991, 139 (Tell Masos, Tell Keisan, Tell es-Sa"idiyeh, Tell Deir Àlla, dif-
ferent areas of the Levant, Late Bronze-Iron Age); McQuitty 1993-94, 63 (Àqaba/Ayla, Jordan, Islamic period).
55
E.g. at Tell Gudeda, a third millennium BC site of north-eastern Syria (Routledge 1998, 244), or in one
Iron Age tannur at Tell Afis in Syria (Mazzoni 2005, 67).
56
van der Steen 1991, 137 (Tell Deir Àlla, with reference to other sites in the Levant); see also Parker et al.
2006, 78.
57
Like, for instance, in the case illustrated in McQuitty 1993-94, 64, fig. 7.
58
Van der Steen 1991, 137, 149 (Iron age tannurs from Tell Deir Àlla).
Ovens in rooms were usually placed directly on the floor’s surface or on a platform, while open-air
ovens could also be dug-in, or placed into a work-pit (ibid., 144, fig. 16). Details on tannur stratigra-
phy are rarely found in excavation reports; from the few available descriptions it seems, however, that
59
the most common settings everywhere were “level” and “dug-in”, the latter with a considerable de-
60
gree of variability in details, while, on the other hand, subterranean tannurs are never explicitly
61
reported.
The outer finish of the oven is generally given more attention by the excavators. A recurring feature
is the presence around the tannur’s wall — more often around its lower part — of a layer of pottery
62
sherds, sometimes packed with clay, whose function was most probably to provide heath insulation
(Fig. 7). A more sophisticated variant of this system would be a double-skin type of construction con-
sisting of two concentric walls of clay and pottery sherds with a layer of clay, silt, sand or ash in-
63
between (Fig. 8). This type appears to concentrate in the Levantine area, where it first occurs in the
64
Middle Bronze and is especially frequent in the Iron Age, after which it tends to go out of use, al-
65
though examples of it are reported from Hellenistic and Early Islamic sites, as well. On the other
hand, according to Dalman (1935, 98), this double-skin construction could also represent the result of
a way of repairing a cracked tannur, as described in post-biblical sources. It has also been recently sug-
66
gested that ovens protected in this way may have been used for purposes other than bread-baking.
Finally, an insulation layer of clay alone is explicitly reported only from Tell Deir Àlla (van der Steen
1991), but was probably present elsewhere as well.
59
See, e.g., McQuitty 1993-94, 57; cf. also Routledge 1998, 244 (Tell Gudeda, north-eastern Syria, third
millennium BC). Other examples of tannurs placed directly on the floor: Mulder-Heymans 1997, 49; 2002, 201
(Iron Age, Tell Harar, Israel); Matney – Rainville 2005, passim (Ziyaret Tepe, Turkey, Iron Age).
60
For instance, at third millennium Tell Brak in north-eastern Syria, it was observed that “the sides of the
larger oven had bee carefully set onto … sherds on edge lining the firepit which had been dug into the floor”
(Oates – Oates – McDonald 2001, 28-29, fig. 28); while at Late Chalcolithic Kenan Tepe in Turkey tannurs were
placed on level surfaces protected by shallow “niches” cut into the earlier levels (Parker et al. 2006, 75-78). In
one case the section of the niche was lined with bricks; while in another one the tannur cone “was placed over
four mudbricks that were set within the oven, probably to elevate fuel and allow air circulation”.
61
Cf. Crawford 1981, 109.
62
Cases where a sherd lining is explicitly mentioned are, for instance: van der Steen 1991, 139 (tannurs
from different Late Bronze-Iron Age sites in the Levant); Mulder-Heymans 1997, 48; 2002, 201 (Iron Age
tannur from Tell Hadar, Israel); Matney – Rainville 2005, passim (Iron age tannurs from Ziyaret Tepe in Turkey).
Though all of them concern Iron age sites, this feature was present at earlier and later sites as well, as shown by
an unsystematic review of tannurs illustrations from different excavation reports and, more specifically for third
millennium BC north-eastern Syria, by the examples from Tell Beydar discussed below. For Late Bronze Age
Syria, see also Otto 2006, 72, who, for the tannurs of Tell Bazi on the Euphrates, mentions a layer of “clay,
stones, sherds or mud-bricks”.
63
In particular, we were not able to find any reference to the presence of this type of outer finish in Meso-
potamia.
64
Van der Steen 1991, 139, with references to several Levantine sites of the Middle Bronze to Iron Age; see
also Dalman 1935, 102, for an example from Megiddo.
65
McQuitty 1993-94, 63-65, figs. 9, 10 (XI century AD tannurs at Àqaba/Ayla in Jordan), with reference to
other Hellenistic to Umayyad sites.
66
This would be the case of some Iron Age ovens discovered at Tell Shiukh Fawqani on the Syrian Euphra-
tes, whose context, according to Luciani 2005, 761 (see also ibid., 728-770), could suggest an use connected with
metallurgical activities. A similar association of “tannurs” with metallurgical installations was also observed in a
Late Bronze Age house at Tell Bazi on the Syrian Euphrates (Otto 2006, 180-171).
130 Elena Rova
In all these instances, the oven was free-standing, and not fixed into a clay or mud-brick superstruc-
ture, as is normally the case in modern tannurs. Although not as common as nowadays, this system
was known and used in antiquity as well, as shown by numerous examples from all regions and
67
periods. In some cases it may be difficult, for the excavator, to understand whether one is dealing
with a proper superstructure, or rather with what appears to have been another very frequent way of
protecting the tannur, namely its inclusion into a small “niche” formed by tiny mud-brick walls nearly
68
tangent to its base; the main difference being that, in the latter case, the oven cone was free-standing,
69
at least in its upper part. It is not always clear how tall the walls of these niches were, and whether
and how these small spaces were roofed; in any case, they were generally open on one side, so that
they can hardly be compared to modern “oven houses”.
A point on which excavation reports are often ambiguous concerns the outside or in-door location
of tannurs. There is nowadays a tendency in less clement climates (e.g. North Jordan or Turkey) for
bread ovens to be located inside rooms or inside small oven houses (McQuitty 1984, 261-265; 1993-
94, 60). In ancient times, this situation seems to have been rarer (ibid., 264-265). As a matter of fact,
70
tannurs seem to have been often located in courtyards or open areas, although a location inside small
spaces, usually positioned near the main entrance of the domestic unit, in any case with direct access
71
from the courtyard, is also common. Only in a few cases there is positive evidence, however, that
72
these spaces were roofed, so that the possibility remains that they were not, or that they were only
equipped with a protection of light material.
67
The earliest examples date back to the Ceramic Neolithic period (Ali Kosh and Çatal Höyük: cf. Au-
renche 1981, 252, fig. 205). Further examples are: Parker et al. 2006, 76-78 (Kenan Tepe in Turkey, late Chalco-
lithic period); Oates – Oates – McDonald 2001, 29, fig. 30; Emberling et al. 1999, 12 (Tell Brak in north-eastern
Syria, third millennium BC); Crawford 1981, 108 (Abu Salabikh, third millennium BC southern Iraq); Mazzoni
2005, 87-88, fig. 62 (Tell Afis in Syria, Iron Age; in this case, the superstructure extended into a bench-line
installation, whose top could be used as a working surface, as is often the case in present-day village tannurs);
McQuitty 1993-94, 60-63 (Àqaba/Ayla, Jordan, Islamic period). Similar tannurs, “surrounded by a substantial
casing of mudbrick and mud plaster”, are attested in ancient Egypt as well (Samuel 1999, 133, pl. 3, El-Amarna).
68
According to our own experience, this situation seems to have been rather frequent in third millennium
BC north-eastern Syria (for an example from Tell Brak, see Fig. 5: Oates – Oates – McDonald 2001, fig. 78), but
it is certainly attested elsewhere as well (see, e.g., Matney – Rainville 2005, passim, Ziyaret Tepe in Turkey, Iron
age period).
69
To judge from the description and the illustration, dubious cases could have been Parker et al. 2006, 76;
McQuitty 1993-94, 60-63, figs 7-8.
70
This is, for instance, the case in third millennium BC Upper Mesopotamia, according to the author’s ex-
perience. For the second millennium BC in the same area, see also Dezzi Bardeschi 1998, 39; for southern Meso-
potamia in the same period, Brusasco 1999-2000, 77-78. A similar situation seems also attested at Tell Deir Àlla
in the Iron age (van der Steen 1991, 141, 136, table 1). It has been suggested by various authors that tannurs
located in courtyards or open areas were used as “summer ovens” (see, e.g. Crawford 1981, 108; Otto 2006, 72).
71
For third millennium north-eastern Syria, see, among others: Lebeau 1993, 103; 1996, 132 (Tell Melebi-
ya); Dohmann-Pfälzner – Pfälzner 1996, passim (Tell Chuera); Pfälzner 1996, 123 (Tell Bderi); Routledge 1998,
244-245 (Tell Gudeda); Schwartz – Klucas 1998, 203 (Tell al-Raqa` i). According to Otto 2006, 72-73, at the
Late Bronze Age site of Tell Bazi in Syria tannurs were often located in the main room of the house, i.e. in a
roofed area, though not far from an open space; when possible, however, it was preferred to shift them to an open
area.
72
For instance, in one case from third millennium Mari, the floor of the room where a series of tannurs were
located was covered by carbonised beams (Margueron 1984, 25). On the contrary, in the case of a similar room
at Tell Brak (Emberling et al. 1999, 12), the excavators observed that “it is possible that this room would not
have been roofed; certainly there were no wooden beams in the fill”.
A practice which is not explicitly mentioned in ethnographic studies focusing on present day Near
East, but for which there is ample archaeological evidence, and which was therefore quite widespread
73
in the past at least, concerns the building of a new tannur in exactly, or in approximately the same
position as an earlier one. In such cases, the walls of the earlier tannur were not completely removed,
but only cut to a certain height, and the new tannur cone was placed either inside the remains of the
74
earlier one, over its ashy filling, or partially cutting into them (Fig. 9). Sequences of up to seven such
successive rebuildings — normally connected with a progressive raising of the room’s floor — have
been documented (see van der Steen 1991, 141-142, table 1), but two to four seems to be a rather com-
mon occurrence. There have also been occasional attempts (e.g. McQuitty 1993-94, 63, 68) at estimat-
ing the period of use of a room through the number of successive tannurs it contained, on the basis of a
period of five to ten years of use for an individual tannur.
Excavation reports sometimes provide additional information about tannur contents and associated
materials. The standard filling of tannurs consists of superimposed layers of ashes of different col-
75
ours. These represent the result of successive fuel combustion, whose remains were only occasionally
removed. In a number of occasions it has been observed that ashes removed from the tannurs have
been re-deposited on the floor of the surrounding room, where in the course of time they could lead to
76
substantial ash accumulations. There is also evidence, however, that the tannur bottom could be
raised by leaving the ashes in situ and covering them with a layer of clay, a practice which would of
77
course lead to considerably reduce the original depth of the oven.
Only rarely have bread-oven ashes been visually examined in order to obtain information on the
78
used type of fuel. More frequently, though still far from systematically, they have been sampled for
palaeobotanical analysis. The vegetal species recovered have generally been interpreted as deriving
79
from the fuel used (brushwood or, more often, animal dung) to heath the tannur, rather than from the
73
This apparent difference may simply be a consequence of the different nature of archaeological versus
ethnographic evidence, which leads the archaeologist to devote special attention to diachronic developments.
74
Examples are numerous and are distributed among all different periods and areas; therefore we will limit
ourselves to mentioning a few: Lebeau 1993, 103; 1996, 132 (Tell Melebiya, north-eastern Syria, third millen-
nium BC); Margueron 1984, 25, fig. 17 (Mari, third millennium BC); Gibson 1978, 59 (Nippur, Old Babylonian
period); van der Steen 1991, 141-142, table 1, fig. 4 (Tell Deir Àlla, Jordan, Iron Age); Matney – Rainville 2005,
passim (Ziyaret Tepe, Turkey, Iron Age); McQuitty 1993-94, 60-65 (Àqaba/Ayla, Jordan, XI century AD). The
same practice is also attested in Egypt, at El-Amarna (Samuel 1999, 133, pl. 3). In most cases it is simply men-
tioned by our sources and not further elaborated upon, but in at least one case (McQuitty 1993-94) it is described
in detail and illustrated with plans and stratigraphic sections.
75
A typical situation is, for instance, illustrated in Parker et al. 2006, fig. 6 (Kenan Tepe, Turkey, Late Chal-
colithic period).
76
Lebeau 1993, 103, 1996, 132 (Tell Melebiya); Routledge 1998, 244 (Tell Gudeda); Oates – Oates –
McDonald 2001, 23, fig. 22 (Tell Brak), all from third millennium BC north-eastern Syria, but see also van der
Steen 1991, 150, table 3, for an Iron Age example from Jordan (Tell Deir Àlla).
77
As, for instance, in one case at Abu Salabikh in southern Iraq (Crawford 21981, 107, 108, figs. 2, 3).
78
According to McQuitty 1984, 261, for instance, a large area of fine dung ash around the oven with a con-
centration of darker burning and charcoal inside it would suggest a tabun type of installation. According to the
same author, “dung ash can be distinguished archaeologically as it contains fibres whereas wood ash is powdery
with lumps of charcoal”. According to Crawford 1981, 108, a third millennium BC tannur from Abu Salabikh
contained “the remains of vegetable matter which apparently included grass and reeds used as fuel”.
79
For instance, botanic samples from tannurs from third millennium sites in Syria yielded the following re-
sults: at Tell Brak they were found to contain chaff and mixed crops (Oates – Oates – McDonald 2001, 301-326,
esp. 321); while at Tell Bderi they contained twigs of firewood (Engel 1996, 108), and at Emar (Riehl 2001, 159-
160, 163, 166-167) they consisted of wood, burnt crop by-products and/or dung remains. Similarly, at Iron Age
Tell Deir Àlla in Jordan (van der Steen 1991, 149, fn. 1), they were found to contain “wood from local trees …
132 Elena Rova
80 81
food baked inside it. In a few cases, animal and, in one case, fish bones found inside tannurs may
however represent the remains of different food cooked in it.
Micro-archaeological analysis of samples from Iron Age tannur fillings at Ziyaret Tepe (Matney –
Rainville 2005) showed that these contained high concentration of micro-sherds and chipped stone
debitage, probably to be interpreted as normal domestic refuse. The frequent presence of large pottery
sherds among the ashes may be interpreted in a similar way, though, according to van der Steen 1991,
149-151, it could also suggest that sherds, due to their good heath-preserving qualities, were purposely
used for keeping the fire glowing inside the tannur after use.
Among recurring associated finds, a few can be interpreted as strictly connected with the tannurs’
use. The first of these consists of large flat disks made of the same material as the oven, which were
82
probably used as tannur covers. Their overall rarity may be partly explained with the fact that their
sherds could be easily mistaken for fragments of tannur wall. The rare occurrence of complete cooking
pots inside the bread-oven (van der Steen 1991, 150, table 3; 151, fig. 2) could point to its secondary
use as a cooking installation.
A further association which repeatedly attracted the excavators’ attention is that with small bowls
83
or dishes, or with stones with a central depression: it has been connected with the present-day custom
of placing on the upper surface of the tannur superstructure a bowl filled with water or oil to moisten
84
the baker’s hands and to prevent the dough from sticking. Occasionally, the tannurs were joined by
small stone tables or platforms, on which the baker could lay the dough, the water bowl and the bread
85
loaves.
Other categories of finds which, though not directly associated with the tannurs, tend nevertheless
to occur in their neighbourhood, or in adjacent spaces, are grain bins, small silos and other grain de-
86
posits, and, most frequently, basalt grinders and grinding stones. All of these installations and objects
87
are clearly connected with bread dough preparation.
and different kinds of seeds, which can be found in animal fodder”), and at the Islamic site of Àqaba/Ayla
(McQuitty 1993-94, 65-68, see also 73-74, Appendix b) they contained wood charcoal, charred dung, and re-
mains of soft plant tissues (the latter most probably used as tinder for the fire).
80
As rightly pointed out in Oates – Oates – McDonald 2001, 321, referring to a remark by Van Zeist and
Bakker-Heeres, “given that dough and flour are the likeliest cereal-derived ingredients in ovens used for baking
bread”, it is unlikely that plant remains in ovens could represent ‘the spillings of food preparation’ ”.
81
van der Steen 1991, 150, table 3; 151 (Tell Der Àlla, Iron Age); McQuitty 1993-94, 6 (Àqaba/Ayla, Is-
lamic period).
82
An example from Mari is mentioned in Otto 2006, 72, fn. 208. Two examples were recovered at Tell Deir
Àlla (van der Steen 1991, 137). For parallels from similar contexts from Tell Masos and from the Islamic site of
Tell Abu Sarbut, see ibid.
83
Brusasco, 1999-2000, 79, fn. 65 (Old Babylonian Ur); Gibson 1978, 56-59, cf. Stone 1987, 108 (Old
Babylonian Nippur); Martín Galán – al-Othman 2003, 509 (Tell Beydar, north-eastern Syria, Hellenistic period).
84
Nissen 1968, 110; Sweet 1974, 133-134; see also Fiorina 1985, fig. p. 170.
85
E.g. at Tell Bazi in Syria in the Late Bronze age (Otto 2006, 73, fig. 30). More often, however, the surface
of the tannur superstructure served the same purpose (see supra, fn. 67). According to Otto 2006, 73, 82-83, the
low walls that sometimes surrounded the oven may have served the same purpose.
86
In the following we list only a few examples, from different geographical areas and periods: Emberling et
al. 1999, 9-12 (Tell Brak, third millennium BC north-eastern Syria: bins, grinding slabs, and storage jars); Rout-
ledge 1998, 245 (Tell Gudeda, third millennium BC north-eastern Syria: basalt grinding stones); Gibson 1978, 59
(Nippur, Old Babylonian period: grinding stones); Mulder-Heymans 1997, 48; 2002, 201 (Tell Harar, Israel, Iron
Age: a grinding stone, a “granary”); Mazzoni 2005, 87-88 (Tell Afis, Syria, Iron Age: small silos, grinders and
grinding stones, mortars, an installation possibly used for preparing the dough). More in general, see also Bru-
sasco 1999-2000, 78-79, who notices, for Old Babylonian Ur, a significant correlation between “oven/fireplaces/
cooking ranges and rubbing stone/querns”, while at Tell Deir Àlla in the Iron Age (van der Steen 1991, 150-151)
The evidence from the third millennium BC Northern Building at Tell Beydar
As was to be expected, the recent excavations at the third millennium BC urban centre of Tell Beydar
88 89
in north-eastern Syria have also brought to light a considerable number of tannurs. Field I, the area
at the north-eastern periphery of the central mound adjacent to one of the Inner City Gates excavated
90
since 1997 under the responsibility of the Ca’ Foscari University Venice, has however yielded a spe-
91
cial concentration of these installations, since 21 of them have been unearthed so far in the area. All
of them are located within the space occupied by a large architectural complex (the so-called
“Northern Building”) which stood, in dominant position, on the top of the mound’s slope, just inside
the Inner City Wall (Fig. 10).
The Northern Building was erected at the beginning of the EJ IIIa period, around 2600/2550 BC,
92
and repeatedly renewed and transformed in the course of its life, which probably amounted to less
93
than 150 years. The excavated tannurs belong to different phases of the building, and are therefore
not all strictly contemporary with each other; nevertheless, some of them were certainly in use at the
same time. In the course of time, their location appears to have shifted to different rooms and areas
within the building, but their presence represents a constant feature of the complex throughout its his-
tory, which characterises it in comparison with the surrounding excavation areas.
94
Some of the tannurs appeared to be isolated features; but in at least three cases we could notice a
concentration of more than one tannur in the same space. The sub-phase 4c building (Fig. 10), not
95
completely excavated so far, contained at least two such tannur concentrations, in rooms 61559 (Fig.
tannurs were found to be associated with silos and grinding stones, but also with other objects of domestic use,
like looms.
87
A further type of associated installation, namely plastered “basins”, which may have been used as “grind-
ing tables” for collecting the ground flour or for kneading the dough, will be more extensively discussed in the
following paragraphs (see also Marigliano in this volume).
88
Preliminary reports are published in Lebeau – Suleiman 1997; 2003; 2005; 2007.
89
For isolated examples see, e.g., Lebeau – Suleiman 2007, 13, 30, fig. 17; 87, 201, 208, fig. 4.
90
For preliminary reports on the excavations in Field I, see Milano – Rova 2001; 2003a; 2003b; 2006; in
press; Milano – Rova – Sténuit 2005, 67-68.
91
This figure and the relevant table (Table I) include only the examples which were clearly identified as tan-
nurs and not those (some additional four or five), the interpretation of which was uncertain.
92
A first building (sub-phase 4d) had been cut almost to ground’s level and partially filled with bricks; this
was followed by a second building (sub-phase 4c), whose thick, white plastered walls were still standing to a
considerable height. The internal layout of the sub-phase 4c building was then modified at least twice (sub-
phases 4b-a). Later still, the complex underwent a further reshaping (Phase 3): although it apparently maintained
the same public character and the same function as in the previous phases, and had a similar general layout, its
architecture was now definitely less monumental and of lesser quality. Finally, during the EJ IIIb period (Phases
1, 2) the building was superseded by more modest structures, possibly domestic in character, which still partially
exploited some of the earlier walls.
93
Thirteen C14 samples from layers belonging to different phases of the Northern Building and to subse-
quent occupation in the area quite consistently suggest a range between 2500 and 2300 BC, which is in agree-
ment with an approximate date of 2550-2400 ca for the main phases of the building (see Milano – Rova in
press).
94
Notice however that these are usually located near the limit of excavation, or belong to levels which have
been exposed only on a limited surface, so that it cannot be excluded that they were also part of tannurs concen-
trations.
95
This room contained two very large tannurs (61908 and 61938), which were certainly in use at the same
time. Fragments of tannur wall unearthed under the room’s floor would point to the presence of other, earlier
bread ovens in the area.
134 Elena Rova
96
12) and in room 61543, both located along the eastern limit of the complex. The most significant case
was, however, room 61859 in the W part of the excavated area (Fig. 11). This room was first built in
sub-phase 4a, at the end of the EJ IIIa period, and remained in use throughout Phase 3, which is dated
to the time of the transition between the EJ IIIa and the EJ IIIb period. It contained fourteen different
tannurs, six of which were in use at the same time, and showed multiple re-buildings (Fig. 13). During
Phase 2, in the early EJ IIIb period, the northern part of this space (room 61425) was still used as a
“tannur room”, but hosted a single tannur, while its southern part was transformed into a separate unit
(room 61409), which contained a large fireplace (Fig. 14).
Tannurs typology, technical features, and location

The excavation of the Field I Northern Building offered the opportunity for a detailed observation of
the tannurs technical features, whose results are summarised in Table I.
Due to the frequent rebuildings the whole area was subjected to, none of the Field I tannurs was
preserved up to its original mouth. In rare cases the tannur’s wall had been artificially cut quite near to
97
the base: almost invariably this happened before the room’s floor was raised and formally re-plas-
tered. More often, the oven seems to have just been abandoned for some time and left to deteriorate in
place. When it was decided to change the layout of the area, e.g. when new tannurs had to be built, the
remains of the old ones were simply in-filled, by which operation the upper part of their wall was
broken and its fragments were just pushed inside the cone. This resulted in an average wall preserva-
tion of 40-70 cm, which, together with the general inclination of the wall, suggests that the original
height must have been around 80-100 cm.
The ovens appear to have been rather standardised, i.e. slightly conical, in shape, differing in this
respect from some of the modern examples, which can be either more strongly conical, or almost
98
cylindrical (see Fig. 2). With a few exceptions, their diameter at the base was between 80 and 100
cm. Considering that the wall was often significantly deformed, this points to rather standardised di-
ameters, as well. As we pointed out earlier (see supra, fn. 46), these figures seem significantly larger
than those reported from sites in the Levant (for which we have a considerable number of comparative
data), although they are more in line with those from other Syro-Mesopotamian sites. In any case, at
least the two ovens from room 61559, with diameters of 135 and respectively 110 cm, are definitely
larger than the average examples, and suggest a special situation.
Smaller tannurs, with diameters between 40 and 60 cm are, on the contrary, quite exceptional (only
one case). There were, however, in the Northern Building, a few examples of clay installations whose
wall was similar to that of the tannurs, but the size of which was much smaller. Three examples were
found in a small space of the sub-phase 4a building (87560) adjacent to the “tannur room”: they were
10-20 cm high, had a diameter of 27-40 cm, and were filled with ashy soil (Fig. 15). Another one — 6
cm high, 40 cm wide — was found in room 87228, in the eastern wing of the building; it was filled
99
with black ashes. These installations were most probably connected with food preparation, but appar-
ently not specifically with bread baking; therefore, although in theory they might be considered as
belonging to the category of “portable tannurs”, we preferred not to include them in our list of tannurs.
96
This room contained two smaller tannurs (87060 and 87050), which were in use one after the other.
97
Tannurs 61908, 61934, 87171, and 87050.
98
See, e.g. the examples illustrated in Martín Galán – Al-Othman 2003, fig. 4, for the former case; those in
Mulder-Heymans 2002, fig. 7, fig. 13, for the latter one.
99
In the case of room 87560, for instance, a concentration of animal bones was observed in a nearby area.
100
The fabric of the Field I tannurs wall was normally rather coarse; its thickness was usually 2.5-3
cm, but it could exceptionally reach 4 cm. The core was constantly reddish in colour, while the outer
surface often showed a beige-greyish tone; the inner surface varied between whitish and grey, and oc-
casionally showed black burnt areas. The inner surface, to which bread loaves were stuck, was care-
fully smoothed (see Fig. 19). All these features correspond quite closely to what has been observed at
other sites of the ancient Near East (see supra). In a few cases the outer surface of the tannur’s wall
was carelessly smoothed, as occasionally reported elsewhere. In the majority of the examples, how-
ever, it showed a special treatment, for which we were not able to find any precise parallel in litera-
ture: it was partially — or entirely — covered by groups of parallel finger marks (Fig. 16, see also Fig.
101
17). These could be more or less deep, and generally run quite casually in different directions, but in
a few cases their layout showed a more regular pattern: e.g., they could be arranged in successive
bands of slanting marks forming a fish-bone pattern. Although the layout of these finger marks was
certainly intentional, it is doubtful whether it aimed at any kind of decorative effect.
The surface of three tannurs showed additional marks of a different type: deep horizontal impres-
sions derived from a thick rope (Fig. 18). These were most probably not intentional; they may have
been originated by the practice of tying the tannur wall during its construction in order to prevent its
falling apart while still wet. It is improbable that they were produced during the transportation of the
tannur cone to its final location, since this must have occurred when the clay wall had dried com-
pletely.
The bottom of some tannurs showed a modelled, thickened rim (see Fig. 16), but this was in no way
the rule. In two cases there may have been a vent hole on the south-eastern side of the oven; none of
them is however certain, and in many other cases it is rather sure that the wall was continuous and no
hole was present. In a few cases it was observed that the bottom of the cone was not horizontal (Fig.
19). This may suggest that, like on modern tannurs, the cone was intentionally placed in a slightly in-
clined position (see supra); since however the tannur areas in Field I were often subjected to changes
and re-buildings, it may as well be a consequence of later disturbances.
The tannur base showed a considerable degree of variability. In a few cases it consisted of a bed of
small basalt stones (Fig. 20), as in some of the modern examples mentioned above. More frequent was,
however, a layer of small pebbles or grit (Fig. 19). This was laid either directly on the room’s floor, or
into a shallow cut; it was normally only a few cm thick, but could reach a depth of 12-15 cm. In other
cases, the tannur rested on a thin layer of compacted clay, which had been slightly baked and hardened
by the heath of repeated internal combustion. In one case the tannur’s bottom consisted of a layer of
compacted sherds and brick fragments, in another one in a layer of grit surrounded by a ring of pottery
and brick fragments, on which the cone’s wall rested.
The setting of the tannur in relation to the floor of the room was also quite unstandardised, and
apparently decided on the basis of contingent circumstances. The two tannurs attributed to the post-
Northern Building (Phase 1) occupation of the area (9018, 61213) were the only ones which were
standing on a raised brick platform (Fig. 21). This may represent a later development in tannur
building technology, or may have something to do with the functional change of the area. Both tannurs
were found near the western limit of the excavated area, so that it is not clear whether they were lo-
100
In a couple of cases it appeared to be finer and better fired; in one of them (61213), however, the cone of
the tannur consisted of part of a re-used storage jar.
101
This surface treatment is also attested on other excavation areas at Tell Beydar (Fig. 17). It may represent
a local peculiarity or, more probably, a regional feature which has not been explicitly described in other excava-
tion reports.
136 Elena Rova
102
cated in an open, or rather in a roofed space, and whether, e.g., they belonged to a group of tannurs
or represented individual, domestic installations.
As for the earlier phases, the cones could be simply lying on the room’s floor, or, more often, they
could be laid into a shallow pit cutting into it. Most common was, however, the case in which they
were lying directly on the cut-in or levelled remains of earlier structures: generally of other tannurs,
but occasionally also of walls or benches (Fig. 22). We did not find any example of tannur located into
a proper work-pit, as reported from other archaeological sites and from ethnological evidence.
The bottom of most ovens was lying at approximately the same level as — in some cases a few cm
deeper than — the surrounding floor. Only in one case (tannur 87199) the tannur seems to have been
more deeply cut into the room’s floor, so that its bottom was lying ca 30 cm under the level of the
latter. Also noteworthy is the case of another tannur (61450) (see Figs. 11, 13-14): this was originally
located at floor’s level, or even slightly above it (it was resting on an earlier cut-in wall), but remained
in use for a long time. Since in the meanwhile the surrounding floor was repeatedly raised, in its final
103
phase of use the tannur oven must have been partially subterranean.
Contrary to many of the modern examples and to a number of archaeological ones, all of the Field I
tannurs appear to have been standing free, at least in their upper part, as clearly shown, e.g., in the case
of the “tannur room” 61859, where the ashy filling of the room was leaning directly against the tan-
nurs’ walls. Although a brick and clay superstructure reaching the oven’s mouth was never recorded,
both the latest tannurs (9018, 61213) were apparently surrounded, in their lower part, by a massive
structure of mud-bricks (see Fig. 21). In all the remaining cases, the tannur was either standing com-
pletely free, generally adjacent to a wall, though not necessarily tangent to it (this was the case of the
tannurs in rooms 61559 and 61543 in the eastern wing of the Northern Building) or, as was often the
case in the “tannur room” 61859, it was located inside a small niche delimited on two or three sides by
tiny lows walls, or benches (Fig. 23). These “walls” were apparently not more than 20-30 cm high, and
were frequently re-built and/or shifted in their location; they were often not lying directly on the
room’s floor, but, at different levels, on the thick ash layer which covered it (Fig. 23). There were also
cases (tannurs 61450, 61805) where the oven was standing in a small niche formed by cutting an
earlier wall (see Figs. 22, 23). The narrow space between the oven cone and the surrounding walls was
often filled with brick fragments and/or large pottery sherds.
104
The presence of a layer of pottery sherds around the tannur’s wall was quite frequent (Fig. 24); in
the case of free-standing tannurs it was generally limited to the lower section of the wall, and had
probably the double purpose of insulating the oven and of protecting its base from wear. It two cases
however, it was found only on the upper part of the wall: in the first one the base of the tannur (9018)
was included into a massive brick platform, which clearly provided enough heath insulation (cf. Fig.
21), while the second case concerned tannur 61450 during its latest phase of use, when the oven was
partly subterranean and the upper part of the cone was therefore lying at floor’s level. On one tannur
(87199) the sherds were cemented to the oven’s wall with a layer of gypsum (Fig. 25), a feature which
might vaguely remind one of the double-skin type of construction attested in the Levant, which is
hitherto unattested at Tell Beydar and at neighbouring sites.
102
It is interesting to remind in this connection that according to van der Steen 1991, 139-141, at Tell Deir
Àlla tannurs located in rooms tended to be built on platforms.
103
A similar situation was observed at Abu Salabikh (Crawford 1981, 107).
104
In a few cases the sherds, usually from large jars, were interspersed with fragments of bricks and small
stones.
As concerns the spaces in which the Northern Building tannurs were located, these were clearly no
large open-air courtyards, but smaller spaces which were part of sequences of rooms devoted to differ-
105
ent activities. Whether and how they were roofed is still an open question. In no case we found clear
traces of roofing (e.g. carbonised beams or remains of matting) in the room filling and/or on the floor;
nevertheless, the considerable width of the walls of room 61559 suggests that this space at least was
roofed. In the case of space 61859, on the contrary, the frequent changes in the layout of its walls, and
the problems of smoke evacuation connected with the presence of a large number of tannurs suggest
that the space was at least partially open, though part of it may have been covered with a protection of
light material (reed mats, fabric, etc.).
As we anticipated before, three different tannurs concentrations were found in the excavated sec-
tion of the “Northern Building”. Room 61859 (see Figs. 11, 13) offered the clearest evidence for the
practice of successive buildings of new tannurs in exactly, or approximately, the same position as ear-
lier ones within a short period of time. As excavated, the tannurs were distributed along the North-
South axis of the room in two irregular rows of three tannurs each, with a low bench (61804) running
106
between them. This would give a maximum number of six contemporary tannurs, although it is not
sure whether all six “positions” were occupied during the whole period of use of the room, which
spanned from sub-phase 4a, to Phase 3 (which probably had two different stages of use), and partially,
as we have seen, even to Phase 2.
The fourteen tannurs whose remains were discovered within the room are obviously not contempo-
rary with each other, since they cut and partially overlie each other. When one of them went out of use,
the normal procedure was not to remove it completely, but to lay a new one over, and into, its care-
lessly levelled remains, often in a slightly shifted position. We found examples of up to three (in one
case possibly four) successive tannurs thus set over each other (Figs. 11, 13). Although it is improb-
able that all the tannurs were re-built at the same time, this three-step sequence could approximately
correspond to the sub-phase 4a occupation, and to two different stages of Phase 3 occupation of the
room, whose limit is marked by a discontinuity in the room filling. One must consider, however, that
the eastern row of tannurs appears in general to have been more “stable” than the western one: as a
matter of fact, it shows sequences of one to maximum two superimposed tannurs, versus a sequence of
three to four ones.
A sequence of four tannurs (87199, 87173, 61822, 61898), the first two of which may have been in
use at the same time, since they do not cut each other, was discovered in the north-western position.
Two sequences, each consisting of three superimposed tannurs (87171, 61899, 61823 and respectively
61860, 87122, and 61864) (Fig. 26), occupied the western central and the south-western position as
well. The north-eastern position and the central position to the East were occupied by tannur 61450
and by tannur 61805, which were both in use over a longer period (both were clearly present over the
whole of the Phase 3 occupation of the room, and the former was still in use during Phase 2, at the
time of room 61425). Finally, the south-eastern position was occupied by two superimposed tannurs
(61883 and 61851, which cut it).
The “tannur room” had no formal floor: the remains of an earlier occupational level had simply
been in-filled and sealed with a thick layer of clay, into, or on which the earliest tannurs were laid.
Over this “floor”, large amount of ashes derived from the tannurs were simply allowed to accumulate,
while small benches and/or raised brick platforms were occasionally built and used to walk on them. It
105
The “tannur room” 61859 was more than 590 cm long and 225-270 cm wide; room 61559 was square in
shape, 320 cm long and 320 cm wide, and room 61543 measured approximately 500 x 250 cm.
106
This was actually an earlier wall (87119), which was reused as a bench supporting some of the room’s
tannurs.
138 Elena Rova
is probable that part of the ashes were removed from time to time, and thrown over the western wall of
the room, where an open space (61408) was found to be filled with superimposed ash lenses separated
by thin clay layers. It is however clear that the floor of the room was not kept systematically clean;
when the depth of the ashes rose too much, they were simply covered by a thin layer of compacted
clay, and the floor level was consequently risen (Fig. 27). During the whole period of use of the
“tannur room”, this resulted into a total accumulation of ashes of up to 100 cm inside the room.
It is not easy to estimate to how may years of use this sequence might have corresponded to; on the
basis of the average life of tannurs reported in literature (see supra, fn. 22) and of other changes ob-
served on the room’s layout, we could propose a reasonable lapse of time of ca some 30 years for the
sub-phase 4a_Phase 3 occupation of the room; a shorter period (down to as little as 15-20 years) or a
slightly longer one could also be considered possible, while a much longer one seems on the whole
improbable.
Both the rooms (61559 and 61543) of the eastern wing of the Northern Building which hosted more
than one tannur have not yet been completely excavated; there are clues, however (see supra) that in
these cases as well the ovens were repeatedly rebuilt on approximately the same place in connection
with different floor layers. Both rooms were not equipped with a formal floor: room 61559, for in-
stance, showed an uneven surface of compacted brownish soil, partially covered with patches of grit.
In both cases, substantial lenses of ashes were lying on the floor but, unlike in room 61859, they did
not extend over the whole room, and their total depth did not exceed 20-30 cm. As far as they have
been excavated so far, these eastern tannur areas were clearly in use over a shorter period of time than
“tannur room” 61859, after which their function seems to have changed, as shown by the fact that in
both cases the tannurs were artificially cut and covered by a proper room floor.
Tannurs fillings and associated finds: a centralised bread production area?

Inside the Field I tannurs, over their base, the oven’s bottom was sometimes covered by a thin layer of
reddish clay, which appeared slightly baked from the heath. Over this, the filling consisted of ashes,
which could be up to 65 cm deep, and often showed different layers of varying depth (see Fig. 21).
This undoubtedly proves that the ovens were not systematically emptied. The colour of the ashes
varied from white to black; in some cases they were darker on the oven’s bottom, but this was not the
rule, since the opposite case is also attested. The ash fillings were systematically sampled for palaeo-
botanical analysis, and thin section samples were taken from two of them (tannurs 61805, 61450), but
107
none of the analyses has unfortunately yet been completed. In some cases, the presence of seeds and
charcoals was observed in the course of excavation. The ashes could be covered either by a compact
clayish filling, most probably intentional and aiming at levelling the tannurs’ surface, or by a layer of
mixed debris, which often included fragments of the tannur’s wall and pieces of mud-bricks.
From within each of the tannurs, we usually collected a few pottery sherds, animal bones and small
fragments of lithics; since all of these represented the standard content of room fillings in the area, it is
however doubtful whether these belonged to the original tannur’s filling. There were nevertheless
some significant exceptions: in a couple of cases, for instance, we found an unusual concentration of
heavily burnt bones — these may suggest a use of the tannur for grilling meat, or may represent the
remains of a meal thrown into the oven to dispose of them or, less probably but still possibly, to be
107
A palaeo-botanical sample from a contemporary tannur found elsewhere on the site, however, yielded
weed seeds, cereal chaff, and a few wheat grain (Leonor Peña Chocarro, personal communication). This compo-
sition is similar to that observed at other sites (see supra, fn. 79) and would be consistent with the hypothesis that
these ashes mainly represent material (possibly animal dung or cultivation by-products) used as fuel.
burnt as fuel. In other cases we found fragments of a single vessel — a small bowl or a small jar; an
interesting find was a small jar, whose rim had been artificially cut to produce a scoop-like object (Fig.
108
26). Finally, inside tannur 61859 there was a fragment of a large flat disk of coarse unbaked clay,
109
most probably to be interpreted as a cover for the oven.
No concentrations of special finds or installations can be reported from the spaces in which the
Field I tannurs were located: as a matter of fact room 61859 in particular was so crowded with tannurs
that it is hardly possible that any other activity besides bread-baking was carried out there. The only
other significant find from the room is a sequence of large jars without bottom set one over the other
(or one inside the other) in upside down position, which is located in the centre of the northern group
of tannurs. The aim of this installation is unsure; one possibility is that is had a draining function, or
was in any case connected with the use of water. The ashy filling of the room did not contain any spe-
cial find, except for a few small concentrations of cereal seeds.
If we take into consideration the neighbouring spaces and, more in general, the sections of the
Northern Building which have been excavated so far, the picture is however very different, and much
more intriguing. First of all, the complex yielded a huge amount of grinders and grinding stones. Very
few of them were found in situ; and actually most had either been reused as wall foundations, thresh-
olds etc., or came from filling and slopewash layers; nevertheless, their same number seems to be note-
worthy.
Even more significantly, the Northern Building was characterised by a special concentration of an-
other type of installation, namely simple and multiple white-plastered basins. These are extensively
discussed by Luca Marigliano in this volume; suffice it to say, in this context, that we interpret them as
spaces devoted to the preparation of flour (as also shown by the recovery in the same areas of several,
110
unfortunately not in situ grinding stones), but, in some cases at least, also to its processing into
111
dough by mixing it with different ingredients, and to dough kneading. The basins are usually located
in spaces adjacent to those hosting the tannurs, though never in the very same room. It the course of
time, the location of both types of installations tends so to say to “move around” within the building,
but their presence in particular sectors of it remains constant. Like tannurs, white-plastered basins
were often re-built on the very same spot, at times with slightly different shape and with slightly
shifted borders. In addition, their plaster was frequently renewed, certainly at least once a year, and
probably even more often than this.
We can consider, as an example, the situation of the so-called “tannur room” of the sub-phase 4a_
Phase 3 building (Fig. 11). Adjacent to the room and directly accessible from it was a corridor-like
space (87409) with a sloping, white-plastered floor, which abutted a small space (87178) equipped
with multiple white-plastered basin-like installations (Fig. 28). Three fragments of basalt grinders
were found — unfortunately not strictly speaking in situ — on the floor of this space. A room (61443)
on the opposite side of the tannur room contained another large white-plastered basin (87466-87522)
(Fig. 29). This was renewed and modified at least four times before being in-filled during a later stage
of Phase 3; the fillings between its different floors contained large amounts of ashes. Room 61443 was
originally accessible from the “tannur room”, although this access was apparently blocked later on.
Among other finds, the Phase 3 filling of the room yielded a fragment of cuneiform tablet bearing a list
108
Similar finds have been made at other archaeological sites as well; for their interpretation, see supra, with
relevant literature in fns. 83 and 84.
109
For parallels and discussion, see supra with fn. 82.
110
This is also the interpretation proposed for similar installations by Pfälzner 1996 (“grinding tables”), and
would be supported by ethnographic parallels collected by this scholar from contemporary Africa.
111
For a similar interpretation of somehow similar installations, see Emberling – McDonald 1999, 9-12.
140 Elena Rova
of rations. Another multiple basin (87129) was located, during Phase 3, in the next room to the South
112
(61478); this area does not seem, however, to have been in direct connection with the “tannur room”
61859.
Finally, there is clear evidence that administrative activities were carried out in the Northern Build-
ing during both Phases 4 and 3. Most important among the relevant finds is a group of 16 cuneiform
tablets dealing with grain rations for personnel and domestic animals, expenditures for persons and
purchases, account of foodstuff, sheep, sickles, and textiles, which had been deposited, during sub-
phase 4a, in a small recess inside a space (87560) located immediately to the West of the “tannur
113
room” 61859. The fragment of tablet from room 61443 mentioned above suggests that similar ad-
ministrative activities continued to be carried out in the area during Phase 3 as well. Finally, small
groups of seal impressions on door sealings, “languettes” and sealings of different mobile containers
were found in different rooms of the Northern Building, in layers belonging to all the different stages
114
of Phase 4.
To sum up, all the evidence presented above suggests that the part of the Northern Building exca-
vated so far was mainly devoted, during both Phases 4 and 3, to large scale food preparation and to
various administrative activities, at least partially connected with food distribution in the form of ra-
tions. In this framework, the discovery of tannur concentrations can be interpreted as evidence for cen-
tralised bread production under the control of the central authority.
Food, and specifically bread production was, however, not the only function of the Northern Build-
ing. The area excavated so far, which measures ca. 20 m in East-West direction, represents only the
eastern part of a larger complex, which may have extended for up to 15 more meters to the West. Only
a small portion of the “western sector” of the complex falls within the presents limits of excavation,
but it is already clear that it shows a definitely more elaborate architecture than the eastern part of the
building. During Phase 4 at least, this sector included a large room (87575), against whose back wall
there was a narrow recess decorated with white-plastered multiple stepped niches (Fig. 10). This kind
of decoration is attested, until now, only in the main room of the temples located in the central part of
the Beydar Upper City: the layout of room 87575, in particular, is especially reminiscent of that of the
115
main room of temple A. It is possible to hypothesise, therefore, that 87575 was the main room of a
temple, or, more cautiously, of an area devoted to some kind of ceremonial functions.
The two sectors of the Northern Building may have not been in direct communication with each
other, but were certainly part of a single, integrated, complex, as shown by the fact that the limit be-
tween them changed in the course of time. During the latest stage of Phase 4 (sub-phase 4a), at the
very end of the EJ IIIa period, for instance, the back wall of the space we tentatively identified with a
ceremonial room was shifted of ca. 1 m in western direction, so that the earlier recess was covered by
part of the “tannur room” 61859 discussed above (cf. Fig. 10 with Fig. 11).
Tannur concentrations as evidence for centralised bread production in the Ancient Near East
We can now turn our attention to possible parallels, from Tell Beydar and elsewhere, for the tannur
concentrations of the Northern Building. The presence in archaeological contexts of tannur concentra-
112
This basin was also rebuilt once, with slightly modified shape, in the course of Phase 3, when the room’s
floor was raised.
113
For a preliminary description of the tablets and of their context of recovery, see Milano – Rova in press.
114
Iconography and style of these seal impressions are discussed in Rova 2008, which gives detailed infor-
mation about their find-spots as well.
115
For room 87575 see Milano – Rova 2006, in press. For the Beydar temples, cf. Lebeau 2006.
tions, and/or of large-size tannurs may theoretically reflect a wide range of different situations, which
could correspond to at least three main distinct economic and social functions.
The first situation is by far the most common one. It corresponds to areas of private dwellings,
116
where each house is provided with a single (occasionally two or three) tannur(s). These are normally
117
located in the courtyard or in a small space near the entrance of the house and obviously serve the
118
needs of a single family. The earliest examples date to the ceramic Neolithic period, but examples
119
can be easily found in all later periods including those from contemporary rural villages in all the
areas of the Near East. In these cases it is clear that one is not dealing with centralised bread produc-
tion, but instead with its contrary (i.e. bread baking at the scale of the individual family household),
and that the concentration of tannurs in a single area is rather connected with the residential function of
the settlement area as a whole, and with the small size of each residential unit inside it.
A different case is that of a domestic dwelling area, where not every house is provided with its own
tannur, and small tannur concentrations are found in special individual buildings (“bakeries”?) or in
120
open common spaces (squares, streets etc.) located among the houses. In the latter case, the tannur
121
area was probably used by a group of neighbouring families, possibly related to each other. Similar
institutions (“neighbourhood tannurs”) are still in use in many modern villages; in modern Near East-
ern towns and cities there are also privately owned “bakeries” where neighbouring families can buy
122
bread, or take their home-made food to be cooked. It has been suggested that this may also have
been the case at some densely built Mesopotamian urban centres (e.g. at Khafajah during the Early
123 124 125
Dynastic I period or at Old Babylonian Ur and especially Nippur ), where problems of limited
space, smoke evacuation, and the danger of fires would have discouraged bread-baking at the scale of
individual households. On the other hand, at the Late Bronze age town of Tell Bazi in Syria, which
was extensively excavated, it was observed that almost all individual households were provided with
116
The presence of more than one example may be explained, in some cases, with the common habit of not
removing an old out-of-use one, or with the presence of “summer” and “winter” tannurs.
117
In third millennium BC north-eastern Syria, the second seems to be mainly the case at Tell Melebiya (Le-
beau 1999, 103 et passim, with reference to the plans of the single houses; see also Lebeau 1996, 132), while
both locations seem to be attested at Tell Bderi (Pfälzner 1996, figs. 5-13) and at Tell Chuera (Dohmann-Pfälzner
– Pfälzner 1996, figs. 4-6).
118
See, for instance, the distribution of bread-ovens at the Hassuna-period settlement of Yarim Tepe I
(Yoffee – Clark 1993, fig. 6.3).
119
See McQuitty’s (1984; 1993-94) remarks about the Islamic settlements of Àqaba/Ayla e Khirbet Faris.
120
This practice may have been rather frequent in the ancient Neat East although, as remarked by van der
Steen 1991, 141, it is difficult to find hard evidence for it on archaeological excavation, due to the small size of
the investigated areas, which makes it difficult to gain a reliable view on the actual number (and location) of
bread ovens in relation to that of individual households. The earliest example may date back to the Ceramic
Neolithic period, as well, as suggested by the excavators for some ovens at Çatal Höyük (Aurenche 1981, 252,
pl. 52 a, with relevant literature).
121
Communal bread-ovens, possibly used by pairs of neighbouring households, have been supposed also for
the Egyptian workmen’s village of Tell el Amarna (Samuel 1999, 139-140), although in this case most families
appeared to have been self sufficient in bread-making.
122
For “neighbourhood tannurs” see supra, fn. 23.
123
See Pollock 1999, 130-131, who suggests that residents in the houses probably received food and services
by the neighbouring temples. In the later part of the Early Dynastic period, however, the situation seems to have
changed (ibid., 131-137), since food preparation by individual households became much more common (for the
Diyala region in the late ED period, see also Henrickson 1981, 62, 77 et passim).
124
Brusasco 1999-2000, 78.
125
In particular, there is strong evidence for identifying a building (House A) in area WB at this site, with a
“bakery” (Gibson 1978, 59, see also 65; cf. Stone 1987, 108).
142 Elena Rova
one or two tannurs, the exception being two households which were located near what was interpreted
126
as the settlement’s “bakery”.
Some of these situations are rather ambiguous in terms of their possible interpretation in connection
with centralised bread production. As a matter of fact, the presence of communal ovens or bakeries
could be easily be interpreted as the result of simple kinship or neighbourhood ties between individual
families, or alternatively, of small-scale trade. In some cases, however, there are hints that such “bak-
eries” may be connected with a central authority: e.g. from the area of the Old Babylonian “bakery” at
Nippur came a group of tablets concerning the receipt of large quantities of barley and bread deliveries
127
to canal-workers and silversmith working for the Ninurta temple. In a similar way, tannur concentra-
tions in areas located outside of the main settlement may be interpreted as evidence for bread produc-
tion either by self-sufficient nomadic groups, or by seasonal workmen possibly under the control of a
128
central authority.
The tannur concentration of Field I at Tell Beydar differs from all these examples in that it is lo-
cated within an architectural complex (the Northern Building), which is clearly non-domestic and pub-
lic in character, and which therefore more unambiguously suggests centralised bread production. Such
situations, on which we will henceforward concentrate our attention, appear to be much rarer, but, as
we will see, not totally unattested in the ancient Near East.
Large scale food production by the central organisations of the Early Bronze Age city states for re-
129
distribution, in form of rations, to the institution’s personnel — but probably also for distributions to
130
the population on special occasions (religious festivities, etc.) — is well attested in the textual docu-
mentation, and confirmed, from the point of view of archaeology, by the frequent presence in palace
and temple areas of spaces devoted to large scale food processing and cooking. As for food processing
installations, suffice it to remind, as an example, the “grinding rooms” of the Early and Middle Bronze
131
Age palaces at Ebla.
In particular, large fire installations located in temple or palace areas have been convincingly inter-
preted as cooking installations. This is the case, for instance, of a number of large circular installations
from third millennium BC south-Mesopotamian temple areas at Ur, Nippur, Uruk and Khafajah, which
M-Th. Barrelet (1974) suggested to reconstruct as domed ovens similar to the traditional “fours de
boulanger” used in France, and to identify with the Akkadian kirma~~u, “large oven”, mentioned in
126
Otto 2006, 74, 223, 224, 237, 249, 263, 277. It is interesting to observe, however, that the bakery was not
provided with tannurs, but with a large circular mud-brick oven (for which, see infra). The room with two tan-
nurs found at Tell Deir Àlla (van der Steen 1991, 149) may have been a “bakery” of similar kind.
127
Gibson 1978, 65. According to one of these text, the amount of bread involved is about 1600 litres in a
two week period. The tablets come from House B and are not strictly contemporary with the House A tannurs
(see Gibson 1975, 106-107, ibid., with interpretation of the house as an “administrative” area, and appendix A,
with translation of the cuneiform texts). For a similar line of reasoning applied to the evidence of Early Dynastic
Khafajah, see supra, fn. 123.
128
Van der Steen 1991, 141-142, with archaeological examples from the Levant. For a contemporary exam-
ple of freestanding “summer tannurs” used by semi-nomadic people while working on the fields, see Mulder-
Heymans 1997, 52, photo 9, 2002, 215.
129
A synthetic introduction to the ration system in the ancient Near East and to its developments in the
course of time is provided by Milano 1989.
130
Most recent literature tends to emphasise the role of feasting occasions to the detriment of that of mere
rations distribution, especially for the earliest periods (e.g. the fourth millennium BC): see, e.g. Forest 1996, 118-
130, with reference to the Uruk period; also Helwing 2003, with further literature.
131
Matthiae – Pinnock – Scandone Matthiae 1995, 109 (palace G), 173 (palace Q). In general, on large scale
grinding installations, see also Ellis, 1993-1997, esp. 401-402; Milano 1993-1997a, 23.
132
textual sources. Similar domed ovens were also found in the second millennium palace of Zimri-Lim
133
at Mari (Fig. 30). It is possible that such ovens, which were especially suited for “indirect” cooking
(i.e. cooking of different kinds of food inside a pot or a plate) were used, among other, to bake bread
134
and other bread-like products (leavened bread, cakes etc.), but this was not their specific function.
From a technological point of view, their appearance, as for tannurs, dates back to the Ceramic Neo-
135
lithic period. According to Barrelet 1974, their use in official complexes in southern Mesopotamia
would not be attested before the beginning of the third millennium BC; nevertheless, some recent finds
136
from earlier fourth millennium BC north-eastern Syria and from the late fourth millennium Syrian
137
Euphrates could support the hypothesis that the appearance of similar large-scale cooking facilities
in public complexes was connected with the very beginning of centralised urban societies.
None of the examples cited above refers, anyway, specifically to tannur concentrations. These are
usually not mentioned in literature as characteristic features of public complexes — as a matter of fact,
they are rather considered typical of domestic buildings, especially in rural environments; as we will
138
presently show, however, they are not totally missing in such contexts.
The earliest possible example we were able to discover is from early fourth millennium BC Tepe
Gawra (level XI/XA). It consists of a series of small rooms and enclosures equipped with tannur-ovens
adjoining the back (western) wall of the “Eastern Temple”, which in M. Rothman’s interpretation may
139
have served the needs of the building’s personnel.
140
A concentration of several tannurs of the Late Uruk period is reported from Jebel Aruda. It was
located in an area overlooking the river, at the eastern limit of the “Southern quarter”, adjacent to a
building which the excavators had interpreted as a temple, but is more probably domestic in nature.
141
Although it is clear that this area was not devoted to normal domestic tasks, the erosion of the
neighbouring area prevents one from better understanding its relations with the surrounding buildings.
132
According to Barrelet 1974, these large ovens and other firing installations, among which so-called “fire-
pits” (for ethnographic parallels for which, see Bromberger 1974) which were found in the same areas, were part
of “temple kitchens” attached to the temples, and not “places of sacrifice” (Opferstätten), as previously thought,
following Van Buren 1952. On these different types of cooking installations, se also Bottéro 1980-83, 279-284,
passim; in particular on firing installations in Early Dynastic Mesopotamian temple areas and on their interpreta-
tion, Tunca 1984, 171-177.
133
Margueron 1982, 250-257, 351-352, figs. 181-182; see also Barrelet 1974, 268-270.
134
Barrelet 1974, 275; Bottéro 1980-83, 282-284.
135
According to Barrelet 1974, 275-276, the earliest examples would date to the Hassuna period (see also
Aurenche 1981, 252-254).
136
This is the case, for instance, of the large domed oven and of the grill structures located in the interior
courtyard of the Late Chalcolithic “Niched Building” of level XVIII in area TW at Tell Brak (Emberling _
McDonald 2001, 22-31; 2004, 9-13, fig. 14); or of the similar ovens from Area B at Tell Hamoukar (Gibson et
al. 2002, 17, fig. 8).
137
An example are the so-called “kitchen buildings” containing large ovens neighbouring the “temple com-
plex” at Jebel Aruda (Vallet 1998, 70-73, fig. 7, with earlier literature).
138
A systematic search would undoubtedly reveal more examples; we preferred, however, to concentrate on
those from the period and region which are more closely connected with the Beydar examples.
139
Rothman 2002, 93-94, fig. 5.26. Notice that evidence for administrative activities, namely seal impres-
sions, was found in the area (ibid., fig. 5.43).
140
Vallet 1998, 66-67, see figs. 1, 2; Van Driel 2002, 194.
141
It is interesting to observe that, like the “tannur room” at Beydar, these rooms were filled with ashes
(Vallet 1998, 67).
144 Elena Rova
More substantial evidence comes from mid-third millennium north-eastern Syria. Recent excava-
tions in the area have unearthed several such tannur concentrations, which may therefore be considered
a characteristic feature of the urban societies of this region.
The first example is from Tell Beydar itself and dates to a slightly later period (EJ IIIb) than the
Field I Northern Building. It is a three room “bakery” located in the southern part of the Upper City
142
public complex, in close proximity to the temple sector, adjacent to Temple B (Fig. 31). One room
(15005), equipped with white-plastered basins and concave areas on which basalt grinding stones were
placed, was devoted to cereal grinding (Fig. 32). This room was situated at a higher level than the
others, and connected with them by means of a stone stairway. The two lower rooms (15042, 15002)
contained large tannur-ovens, and were filled with ashes; these rooms opened directly into the street
(Fig. 33). It is interesting to notice that a further tannur was located in room 13104, on the opposite
143
side of the street.
Even closer, in scale and number of tannurs involved, to the situation of the “Northern Building” is,
144
however, the “bakery area” within the “Oval Enclosure” of area TC at Tell Brak, which also dates to
the Late Early Dynastic period (Fig. 34). Here, a single room (Room 2 on the plan) contained a “bat-
tery” of seven tannurs aligned along the eastern and southern walls, apparently within a mud super-
structure, and a large bin (Emberling et al. 1999, 12) (Fig. 35). The room was possibly not roofed; a
large jar on the floor contained a powdered substance which was tentatively identified with burned
flour, while the room filling yielded thirteen clay sealings, mostly impressed with a variety of contest
scenes. Another group of sealings, which had originally sealed the room’s door, was found buried
close to the east door jamb (Emberling – McDonald 2003, 42). Room 1 nearby (ibid., 11-12) was
probably roofed, since its fill contained remains of wooden beams; it was equipped with white-plas-
tered multiple basins and bins, plastered sloping surfaces and grinding slabs, and also contained a
number of medium and small sized jars (Fig. 36). The excavators suggested that the room was used “to
grind and store flour, and perhaps to knead large quantities of dough”. The tannur room was accessed
by steps down from a small courtyard to the North; just opposite it there were two storerooms (rooms
7 and 8) (Emberling – McDonald 2001, 32) filled with grain. Grain was also stored in other rooms
located further to the North (especially in room 16); other rooms of the complex contained facilities
(drains, fire installations) which have been tentatively connected with beer brewing. Seal impressions
were found (ibid., 36-41, fig. 17) in several rooms of the complex.
The interpretation of the “Brak Oval” is still unsure; it has been suggested (Emberling et al. 1999,
13-14) that it could be part of a temple enclosure, like the “Temple Oval at Khafajah”, but the alleged
similarities with the latter have been subsequently questioned by the same excavators (Emberling –
McDonald 2001, 33-34); in any case, it is certain that we are dealing with a sector of a public com-
plex, in which bread production was carried out on a large scale and under strict control by the city’s
authorities. The “Brak Oval” was destroyed by a huge fire, presumably at the end of the Early Dynas-
tic period; but the discovery of six tannurs in the so-called “Cut-in Building” — an Akkadian building
which was partially cut into the Oval (Emberling – McDonald 2003, 48-50, fig. 50) — suggests that
there may have been some functional continuity in the area.
Smaller tannur concentrations, maybe more closely comparable with the three-room “bakery” in
the temple area at Tell Beydar, have been also discovered elsewhere at Tell Brak. A first example
comes from level 6 (the so-called ED III destruction level) in area CH (Oates – Oates – McDonald
142
Lebeau – Suleiman 2005, 80, 84, figs. 72, 96, 97; Suleiman 2007, 88-89, figs. 17-18.
143
Suleiman 2007, 87.
144
Emberling et al. 1999, 9-15, figs. 12-18; Emberling – McDonald 2001, 31-45, fig. 8; 2003, 37-41, fig. 43.
145
2001, 28-30, figs. 28, 30). This area was interpreted by the excavators as representing the “stores
and working areas of domestic structures, maybe belonging to senior officials of the pre-Akkadian
kingdom of Nagar”, but possibly in connection with the precinct of the latest “Eye Temple”, which
was located immediately to the West. The “bakery” included a room (62) furnished with two tannur
ovens, adjacent to a second room (63), which contained a basalt mortar and a pile of grain, while a
third room (61) contained large storage jars with cereal remains. Another oven was found in a neigh-
bouring room (610). Small groups of one to four tannurs were also found both in the Akkadian and in
the post- Akkadian levels (3-4 and respectively 2) of the large monumental complex of area FS (ibid.,
146
53-67, figs. 54, 71, 74, 76, 78); it is not clear, however, whether, or to which extent, in each of these
levels, the occupation of the area could still be connected with some kind of public authority.
Another interesting case at issue is Steinbau I at Tell Chuera (Orthmann et al. 1995, 28-36, Abb. 8,
9, see also Beilagen 3, 6) (Fig. 37). The complex of rooms which surrounded on the northern and east-
ern sides the monumental stone terrace interpreted as a temple platform included a number of food
storing and processing facilities, the location of which varied in the different phases of the complex’s
life. Especially interesting from our point of view is a room (no. 115) located to the East of the terrace,
which during phase 7b1 contained a group of six tannurs (ibid., 30 fig. 8) (Fig. 37b). One neighbouring
147
room contained several large storage jars.
Another “food processing area” was located within the same cultual complex, at a distance of some
15 meters from the just described one, namely to the North-East of Steinbau 2 (ibid., 73-75, Abb. 32,
Taf. 11, 12, see also Beilage 13) (Fig. 38). It included a courtyard delimited on the southern side by
two curved walls, against which different tannurs were leaning. An open space (room 9) on the west-
ern side of the courtyard contained another small tannur and a white-plastered surface, which the ex-
cavators interpreted as an area for dough processing. South of courtyard 10, though not directly ac-
cessible from it, there was a series of rooms. The western one (room 13) contained a partially subterra-
nean tannur, adjacent to a double white-plastered basin. The easternmost room (room 11) yielded a
large pithos with remains of cereal seeds; a sloping surface lead from it to a small space (room 12),
which contained a basalt grinding stone and a white-plastered surface. The walls and the floors of
rooms 11 and 12 were completely white-plastered. This sequence of spaces bears an extraordinary
similarity with the sequence composed of “tannur room” 61859 and adjacent spaces 87409 and 87178
of the Phase 3 Northern Building at Tell Beydar (see Figs. 11, 28).
In all these examples (with the possible exception, as we have seen, of some of the Brak ones), the
tannurs concentrations are clearly part of a larger public complex; in most of them, furthermore, there
seems to be a direct connection with a temple area.
A somewhat different situation is found in “Chantier B” at Mari (Margueron 1984, 25, figs. 15, 17;
2004, 167-172, figs. 141, 146-148) (Fig. 39). Here, an alignment of four tannurs (a fifth one was added
145
Cf. also Emberling et al. 1999, 12; Dolce 1989, 23-24, who hypothesises a continuity in the function of
the area during the Akkadian period, where a room of a large official building (see Oates – Oates – McDonald
2001, 22-23, Fig. 21), contained two large ovens and a large amount of ashes.
146
For level 4, in particular, bread ovens have been found in room 46 (Oates – Oates – McDonald 2001, 53,
fig. 62) in the south-eastern sector of the area. As for level 3, four ovens were found in an open space located
nearby (ibid., 59, figs. 62, 71), while in the northern sector of the area courtyards 20 and 37 contained a group of
two tannurs each, but other neighbouring courtyards (23, 19) contained only a single one (ibid. 61, figs. 74, 76,
78). Finally, one of the large residential units of level 2 (ibid., 67, fig. 79) included two “bakeries ” (rooms 12,
20) which contained three and respectively two tannurs (ibid., 66-67, fig. 79).
147
A further tannur of the same phase 7b1 was found, together with a larger baking oven, in room 101 to the
North (ibid., 28, Taf. 6b). During phase 7a, this room contained two tannurs and a large baking oven (ibid., 32,
Taf. 9b).
146 Elena Rova
at a later time and is not shown in the plan) was found in room XIX of the so-called “Résidence aux
148
installations artisanales”, which dates back to the Late Early Dynastic period (Fig. 39). The
southern part of the room was occupied by a large bitumen-coated basin surrounded by smaller re-
ceptacles, which was tentatively interpreted as an area for preparing the bread loaves (ibid., 171, fig.
146). The function of the building is difficult to establish: although its plan is similar to that of central
court private houses elsewhere, its dimensions are quite considerable. Furthermore, its eastern sector
(rooms VI, XXI, XXII) yielded a number of peculiar installations (bitumen-coated basins, water
evacuating facilities), which according to the excavator may be related to some industrial activities, in
particular to tissue dying (ibid., 169-170, fig. 145), while, on the other hand, the presence of a small
altar and of a so-called “barcasse” in its central space (room VIII) suggests that cultual practices were
carried out there as well (ibid., 169, figs. 143-144). Finally, from within the building came a group of
18 Late Early Dynastic administrative texts (172-173, 187, fig. 149). Considering this evidence, the
building may be interpreted either as the residence of a rich private person involved in some sort of
“industrial” production, or as a separate “production unit” under the control of the public sector (tem-
ple, palace?). The nature of the cuneiform texts found in the room, which include distributions of bar-
149
ley, but also a fragment of mythological text, could support the latter hypothesis. In either case, the
“bakery” probably served the needs of the people living and/or working in the building.
Our last example, Tell Gudeda in the Middle Khabur Salvage Dam area, represents a still different
case. Gudeda is a small site of the EJ II (Late Ninevite 5) and EJ IIIa periods, that is slightly earlier
than the Beydar Northern Building. Together with Tell Àtij, Tell al Raqa"i and other neighbouring
sites, it belongs to a series of small settlements apparently specialising in bulk grain storage and proc-
150
essing. It is located opposite to Tell Àtij, a contemporary site a large part of which was occupied by
grain storage facilities. The excavated area at Gudeda seems to have been devoted, instead, to food
processing on an “industrial scale”; in the illustrated sector (level 1) (Routledge 1998, 244-245, fig. 1),
for instance, one can notice two different tannur concentrations (Fig. 40). The southern one consists of
four tannurs located in an open area (courtyard); adjacent to them, there were three large plastered
basins, and a concentration of more than 40 basalt grinders and grinding stones. Two additional tannurs
can be seen in a room (515) located a few meters to the North. According to Routledge (1998, 244-
245), while “most of the ovens at Gudeda were found within small rooms where they are the primary
feature”, “the abundance of these oven houses given the paucity of domestic structures” is quite strik-
ing.
151
A considerable number of tannurs has also been found at Tell Raqa"i, notably in association with
bins, plastered basins and other receptacles, and with small round surfaces of burnt clay (“fireplaces”),
shiny as if from repeated rubbing, which the excavators (Schwartz – Curvers 1992, 403) proposed to
interpret as surfaces for kneading dough. Here, however (Schwartz – Klucas 1998, 202-203, fig. 2), the
tannurs did not concentrate into a single area, but were spread among the many small architectural
units surrounding the large “Rounded Building”, which represented the settlement’s centre. As a mat-
148
Small groups of tannurs were also found at other contemporary houses like, e.g., the so-called “Maison au
Piége” in area F (Margueron 2004, 166, fig. 140).
149
This situation is thus very similar to that of the Old Babylonian building at Nippur discussed above (see
supra, with fns. 120, 121). The tannur concentrations in areas CH and FS at Tell Brak (see supra, fns. 136, 137)
may also reflect a similar situation, although in this case the textual sources are missing.
150
For a general review of the Middle Khabur sites and for their interpretation, see Fortin – Schwartz 2003.
For Tell Àtij and Tell Gudeda, see the literature ibid. and in Routledge 1998.
151
Schwartz – Curvers 1992, 403; Schwartz – Kloucas 1998, 200-202. The relevant evidence belongs to
level 3, which dates in the EJ II period.
ter of fact, their distribution contrasts, in this respect, with that of larger mud-brick ovens, which were
found only inside the “Rounded Building” and in a special area located at the settlement’s periphery.
The cases of Tell Gudeda and Tell Àtij differ from the previous ones in the less concentrated lo-
calisation of the tannurs within the settlement. If one considers, however, that these sites have been in-
terpreted as a whole as specialised centres devoted to food processing on an “industrial scale”, we can
still consider them as indicating centralised bread production, although of a somehow different type,
and probably for different purposes.
As we have seen, north-eastern Syria in the mid-third millennium BC offers ample evidence for
centralised bread production, possibly connected with a range of different situations: rations distribu-
tions to the personnel of large official institutions (palaces, temples, manufactures and complexes con-
nected with special “industrial” activities), everyday consumption by the members of large (private?)
households, or small specialised communities, and maybe also for cultural/ ceremonial purposes.
Whether the situation was similar in contemporary southern Mesopotamia is to a large extent an
open question. As we have seen above, although significant concentrations of cooking installations
have been reported from third millennium temple areas in the region, apparently none of them specifi-
cally concerned tannurs. This may depend on different cooking habits (one could suppose, e.g., that
types of bread different from the standard ~ubz tannūr were baked and distributed in these build-
152
ings ), but may also partially depend on the fact that tannurs were often quickly and poorly exca-
vated, and went almost unmentioned in older excavations reports. New excavations, when it will be
possible to undertake them again, would certainly contribute to solving the question, but a systematic
153
re-analysis of the relevant documentation could also prove helpful in this respect.
It is interesting to observe, for instance, that tannurs represent more than half of the 29 different fire
installations discovered at Abu Salabikh in Area E, which have been the object of a study by H. Craw-
ford (1981). They were concentrated in a sector of the site (the so-called “Southern Unit” and some
neighbouring groups of rooms) which yielded, among other finds, a number of possible bread- or cake-
moulds, and which, according to this author, represents “a section of a major public building, part of
154
which was certainly domestic”. Some spaces of the “Southern Unit” contained up to four tannurs,
155
occasionally in association with other types of fire installations. Although at Abu Salabikh fire in-
156
stallations appear to be more diversified in type, the similarity with the Beydar Northern Building
appears to be very close, and it is especially intriguing to observe that both buildings are approxi-
152
The discovery of coarse ware tray-like vessels in an area which contained a concentration of fire installa-
tions of different types at Abu Salabikh (Crawford 1981, 111), suggests, for instance, that leavened breads and
cakes were baked in these buildings.
153
According to Crawford 1981, 107, for instance, a concentration of four tannurs is reported in House
XXVIII at Tell Asmar, level Vc. In other south Mesopotamian examples mentioned ibid., however, individual
tannurs seem to be more often associated with different types of ovens and fire installations.
154
Crawford 1981, 110-114; see also Dolce 1989, 21-22, who likewise interprets the area as a multifunc-
tional centre at least partially devoted to large scale food processing for the needs of a sector of the urban com-
munity. Notice that, according to Green 1993, 7-9, the Abu Salabikh area E buildings may be part of a temple
complex.
155
Crawford 1981, 112-113, room 50 (three tannurs), court 47 (three tannurs, one two-storey oven, one
hearth), room 73 (four tannurs and one earth). Associations of one or two tannurs with an open hearth seem to be
a standard feature (ibid., 105-106, 111-113).
156
As suggested by Crawford (ibid., 110-111) this may be connected with the preparation of different kinds
of bread and other kinds of food and beverages (including beer) in the area. Notice, however, that the description
of some of the “open hearths” at Abu Salabikh reminds one of the Beydar plastered basins, and that a pestle and
a mortar were found near one of them (ibid. 109).
148 Elena Rova
mately contemporary, since Area E occupation at Abu Salabikh dates back to the ED IIIa period
(Crawford 1981, 105).
Later examples of tannur concentrations, though not completely missing, are certainly much rarer.
For the second millennium BC, besides House A in area WB at Nippur, which was discussed above
(see supra, fns. 125, 127), one could mention, for instance, a room (R 118) of the Late Bronze Age
Palace at Nuzi (Fig. 41). This room was part of sector E, which hosted different types of domestic, as
well as administrative activities; it was equipped with two rows of — in total nine — tannurs (Margue-
ron 1982, 436, figs. 302, 308), a layout which is especially reminiscent of the “tannur room” in the
Northern Building.
At the Middle Assyrian fortress at Tell Sabi Abyad on the Balikh in north-eastern Syria, several
tannurs clusters were noticed in an area of small workshops and buildings in the southern part of the
fortress. In addition, the area yielded masses of ground stone objects of the types used for grain proc-
essing, and tablets referring to the distribution of cereals, flour and bread, under the supervision of
157
Paya, the ala~~inu (baker?), to both local people and representatives of settlements elsewhere (Ak-
kermans 2006, 208, fig. 3).
On the other hand, it is interesting to notice that no such tannur concentrations were discovered in
the most famous official building of Syro-Mesopotamia, the Zimri-Lim palace at Mari, which anyhow
158
hosted different types of large scale cooking and baking facilities. A quite large, but isolated tannur
was found in courtyard XIII of the contemporary “Petit Palais Oriental”, a building which during the
latest phase of the city was the seat of a member of the royal family, but which also hosted a number of
hypogean royal graves (Margueron 2004, 351-353, 448-450, figs. 424, 426).
Outside of Syro-Mesopotamia, for instance in the Levant, tannur concentrations connected with
public buildings appear to be equally rare, but a systematic search, which was not carried out, could
probably lead to identify at least some examples: van der Steen (1991, 149) reports, for instance, that
at Tell al-Fara"h a room with three contemporaneous ovens was interpreted by the excavators as a
“palace kitchen”.
Conclusions
From the technological point of view, the tannurs of the Beydar Northern Building are, broadly speak-
ing, similar to Near Eastern examples of these baking installations dating from the Neolithic to the
modern age. They show a considerable variety in details — all of which are however mirrored at other
sites of the same and of different periods — and do not stand out for any special feature, except for the
fact that their average size is slightly larger than usual, and the size of two of them is rather excep-
159
tional.
What is more unusual is, however, their concentration into a single building (and, within this, into
special spaces) and the remarkable continuity in their use. The main excavated “tannur room” of the
Northern Building — which hosted six different ovens — was probably continuously is use for 20-30
years, a period during which its installations were renewed three or four times. If one considers the
area of the building as a whole, however, its “vocation” as a tannur area is a much more persistent
157
For the meaning of this term, see Milano 1993-1997b, 400.
158
See Margueron 1982, 222-223, figs. 156-159; 249-255, 351-352, figs. 176, 181-182; 2004, 492. In par-
ticular, the large circular ovens located in space 70, in close proximity to the throne room, were probably used for
baking special kinds of bread and cakes, as suggested by the recovery in the neighbouring space 77 of a large
number of decorated terracotta moulds (ibid., 516, fig. 505).
159
Another possible exception is the peculiar treatment of the outer surface, which shows impressed finger
and rope marks, but the meaning of this feature is unclear.
feature: its starts, at the beginning of the EJ IIIa period, with the erection of the Phase 4 public build-
ing and continues even after this was superseded, at the beginning of the EJ IIIb period, by more
modest structures of uncertain nature (Phases 2-1).
In spite of the ubiquity of tannur ovens at Near Eastern archaeological sites, tannurs concentrations
are not so commonly attested. Bread baking appears to have been in most cases an everyday task
which was carried out, as it still is in contemporary rural villages in the region, by the women of each
household in an individual oven positioned within the boundaries of its dwelling compound. Among
the exceptions, which consist of clusters of three or more tannurs in special rooms or areas, most are
located in residential areas of private dwellings, and can be easily interpreted either as communal bak-
ing facilities used by neighbouring or related families, or as “neighbourhood bakeries”.
Tannurs concentrations within public buildings (temples, palaces) or public complexes of other
type are definitely rarer in the archaeological documentation, despite the fact that this provides ample
evidence for the presence in these buildings of other types of large scale cooking facilities (large
domed ovens, batteries of fireplaces, fire-pits etc.). Textual sources, on the other hand, make it quite
clear that “kitchens” sectors — é-mu~aldim/bīt nu~atimmi, the “house (room) of the cook”; é-gir4-
160
ma~, the “house of the large oven”; é-udun-na, the “house of the oven” — and specialised personnel
161
(cooks, bakers ) were attached to palaces and temples, their function being to provide food for the
meals of the king and his court (in the case of palaces), of the god (in the case of temples), but also for
162
the institution’s workforce. A bīt tinūri, “house of the tannur”, though present in cuneiform sources,
163
does not seem to be explicitly mentioned in such contexts; and, more in general, tannur-ovens hardly
if ever occur in economic/administrative texts.
If one considers that in ancient Near Eastern societies tannur-bread must have been one of the basic
food products consumed by the whole population, as it still is today in the region, the scarce presence
— both archaeological and textual — of related processing facilities in the official sector appears
somehow surprising. This situation may derive from a combination of different factors, whose relative
importance could be better judged once a systematic collection and analysis of textual sources relating
164
to bread production, which is still missing, would be undertaken.
160
Bottéro 1980-83, 281-282; for third millennium temples see esp. Barrelet 1974.
161
For male and female bakers, mainly in second millennium Syria and Upper Mesopotamia, see CAD E,
248, s.v. ēpû. Already attested as a-bi2-tum / a-bi2-a-tum in the Ebla texts (Milano 1990, 44 and 57) is female per-
sonnel working in the palace to bake bread and receiving rations (information kindly provided by Lucio Milano).
None of these texts however explicitly mention tannur ovens.
162
See CAD T, 421, s.v. tinūru.
163
One must however consider that, as remarked by Bottéro (1980-83, 282), the terminology of fire installa-
tions in both Akkadian and Sumerian appears to have been more functional than formal, so that different terms
may have been used as roughly equivalent to each other, as it clearly appears from the equation, mentioned ibid.,
udun-mu~aldim, “the ‘cook oven’ ” = tinūru.
164
There are, nevertheless, also some basic problems, which depend on the quality of the available data
rather then on the fact that they have not been systematically collected and analysed. As a matter of fact, it is un-
fortunately not to be expected that textual sources like administrative texts could provide us with direct evidence
of the kind needed (the ideal source would be a text connecting a baker with a specific “baking unit”, with the
production of specific kinds of bread, the number and kinds of ovens he was responsible for, and the occasions
and the number of people these products were distributed to). Almost invariably, however, texts would concen-
trate on single, separated elements of the baker’s activity (reception of ingredients and fuel, distribution of proc-
essed food etc.), terminology would be quite general, and number and type of kitchen installations would not be
specifically mentioned.
150 Elena Rova
A preliminary evaluation of textual sources shows that although baked bread is mentioned quite
165
often, e.g. in Sumerian texts, these texts generally do not provide any specific details about timing
and spatial organisation of the baking activities, despite the fact that a few texts do actually suggest
that large quantities of bread were occasionally baked by central institutions, e.g. for feeding hired
166
workmen.
Considering all this, the massive presence of tannurs in private dwelling quarters, together with the
fact that rations distributed by the central institutions were mainly in the form of unprocessed cereals
(Milano 1989) rather than of baked bread, suggests that tannur-bread production was an activity each
family was supposed to carry out on its own, that is outside of the control of the central administration.
This fact may be connected on the one hand with the unspecialised nature of the task involved — not
by chance tannur-bread baking is still considered a typical female activity, which each village woman
should be able to perform. Contrary to other types of cooking and baking (e.g. baking in the large
domed ovens), tannur-bread production would therefore not specifically require concentration under
the control of specialised personnel. On the other hand, tannur-baking delocalisation may also have
been encouraged by technical difficulties, since: 1) it is clear from their rarity in the archaeological
documentation that large-size tannurs were not especially functional, and 2) the concentration of a
large number of tannurs in a small space could create problems of excessive heath, smoke evacuation
etc.
In spite of all this, it is to be expected, as we have seen, that a certain amount of tannur-bread was
anyway produced within the architectural complexes which hosted the large “central institutions”
(temples, palaces), or the non-domestic buildings which where the seat of specific activities (manufac-
tures, specialised production units, etc.) depending on these institutions. The thus produced bread
would have partially satisfied the internal needs of the employees of these “extended households”, and,
in addition, could have been used for different purposes, either on a regular basis (e.g. for ritual meals)
or on more occasional circumstances (e.g., for feeding groups of workmen hired on special occasions).
This picture does not seem to contradict the sparse evidence provided by textual sources (most of
these activities would not need a strict, and above all specific, administrative control, since they could
easily be performed within larger administrative units), and, above all, it seems to be in substantial
agreement with the archaeological evidence we were able to collect. As a matter of fact, this evidence
suggests that in most cases tannur-bread production inside the same official complexes was so-to-say
167
de-localised into small “bakeries” attached to the distinct sectors of the complex, which included a
small number of tannurs and associated features.
If this reconstruction is plausible for the ancient Near East in general, and for Syro-Mesopotamia in
particular, it does not exclude that regional and especially chronological variation also played a role,
and that special cases must have existed, as well.
As for the first issue, our survey clearly indicates a special frequency of tannurs concentrations —
as well as of other large scale cereal processing facilities and installations — in third millennium
165
According to the Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary (s.v. du8), there would be more than 2600 references
in Sumerian texts, especially of the Ur III period to ninda … du8 (“bake”, “baked bread”). This information was
kindly provided by Lucio Milano.
166
An intriguing example is provided, e.g., by the following unpublished text from the Ur III period Gar-
shana archive in the Cornell University collection (quoted courtesy of Prof. D. Owen): “119 2/3 liters of bread
mixed from ordinary â3 flour and semolina, 10 liters of fine groats for the cauldron, (and) 50 bundles of [fuel]-
reeds (sa gi-NE) (with which) the [bread] was baked (ninda … du8) and soup was cooked (tu7 … êg6) for the
hired men (lu2-~un-ga2)” (49-02-019, 10-13 = Owen – Mayr in press, no. 479, 10-13). In is interesting to observe
that in this example at least, fuel for the oven was provided by reeds, and the quantities involved are quite large.
167
One typical example would be, for instance, the “bakery” adjacent to temple B at Beydar.
north-eastern Syria in comparison with the remaining regions. This may point to the existence of slight
differences in the organisation of primary food production, during this period, between southern Meso-
168
potamia and the northern regions, which would certainly be worth investigating in further detail. In
particular, the presence of large clusters of tannurs in possible connection with temple complexes (at
Tell Beydar, Tell Brak, Tell Chuera) may point to a northern variant of the south-Mesopotamian
“temple kitchens”. Interestingly enough, such southern “temple kitchens” were normally equipped
with other cooking and baking installations (large domed ovens, fire-pits etc.) which, maybe not by
chance, appear to be much rarer, if not completely absent, at the northern sites.
On the other hand, the Northern Building at Tell Beydar could represent an example — like the
“Brak Oval” and maybe like the “Southern Unit” at Abu Salabikh, as well — of a rarer situation, i.e.
of a larger sector of a public complex entirely, or mainly, devoted to large scale bread preparation.
Since these areas are not characterised by a particular monumentality and by easily recognisable
common architectural features, and actually show a considerable individual variety, it is probable that
a careful re-analysis of old excavation reports could result in the discovery of further examples, which
were not recognised as such by the excavators. The fact that the examples we were able to single out
all date to the Early Dynastic period may be due to the chances of discovery, but may also suggest that
this type of architectural unit was especially typical of urban centres of third millennium BC Syro-
Mesopotamia.
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ABBREVIATIONS
Akkermans P.M.M.G. 2007, “The Fortress of Ili-Pada. Middle Assyrian Architecture at Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria”,
in P. Butterlin – M. Lebeau – J.-Y. Monchambert – J.L. Montero Fenollós – B. Muller (eds.), Les espaces
syro-mésopotamiens. Dimensions de l’espérience humaine au Proche-Orient ancien (Subartu 17), Turnhout,
201-212.
Aurenche O. 1981, La maison orientale. L’architecture du Proche Orient ancien des origines au milieu du qua-
triéme millènaire (Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 109), Paris.
Barrelet M.-Th. 1974, “Dispositifs à feu et cuisson des aliments a Ur, Nippur, Uruk”, Paléorient 2, 243-300.
Bottéro J. 1980-1983, “Küche”, in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 6, Berlin _
New York, 277-298.
Bromberger C. 1974, “Fosses à cuisson dans le Proche Orient actuel: bilan de quelques observations ethnogra-
phiques”, Paléorient 2, 301-310.
Brusasco P. 1999-2000, “Family Archives and the Social Use of Space in Old Babylonian Houses at Ur”,
Mesopotamia 34-35, 1-110.
168
The presence in the Middle Khabur region of a series of settlements apparently specialising in cereal
storage and processing (for which cf. Fortin – Schwartz 2003) may also be significant in this respect. One could,
for instance, speculate on whether or not concentrations of bread-producing facilities apparently independent
from domestic units may be connected with the presence in the area of a mobile component of population (cf.
Hole 1991).
152 Elena Rova
CAD = The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, Chicago _ Glückstadt, 1956_ .

Crawford H. 1981, “Some Fire Installations from Abu Salabikh, Iraq”, Paléorient 7/2, 115-114.
Dalman G. 1935, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina. Band IV. Brot, Öl und Wein, Gütersloch (reprint Hildesheim _
Zürich _ New York, 1987).
De Castro T. 2005, “De nuevo sobre el tannur: un ejemplo de estudio etnohistórico de al-Andalus”, http://www.
geocities.com/tdcastros/Historyserver/papers/TANNUR.htm (short version of “De nuevo sobre el tannur: un
ejemplo de estudio etnohistórico de al-Andalus”, Fundamentos de Antropología 10-11, 285-296).
Dezzi Bardeschi C. 1998, Architettura domestica nella Mesopotamia settentrionale nel II millennio a.C. (Eothen
8), Firenze.
Dohmann-Pfälzner H. – Pfälzner P. 1996, “Untersuchungen zur Urbanisierung Nordmesopotamiens im 3. Jt. v.
Chr.: Wohnquartierplanung und städtische Zentrumsgestaltung in Tell Chuera”, Damaszener Mitteilungen 9,
1-13.
Dolce R. 1989, “Note per una riconsiderazione di alcune strutture di immagazzinamento e di lavorazione di
derrate nel III e nel II millennio in Mesopotamia e Siria”, in R. Dolce – C. Zaccagnini (eds.), Il pane del re:
accumulo e distribuzione dei cereali nell'Oriente antico, Bologna, 17-48.
Ellis R.S. 1993-97, “Mühle. B. Archäologisch”, in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäolo-
gie 8, Berlin _ New York, 401-404.
Emberling G. – McDonald E. 2001, “Excavations at Tell Brak 2000: Preliminary Report”, Iraq 63, 21-51.
—— 2003, “Excavations at Tell Brak 2001-2002: Preliminary Report”, Iraq 65, 1-75.
Emberling et al. = Emberling G. – Cheng J. – Larsen T.E. – Pittman H. – Skuldboel T.B.B. – Weber J. – Wright
H.T. 1999, “Excavations at Tell Brak 1998: Preliminary Report”, Iraq 61, 1-41.
Engel T. 1996, “Archaeobotanical Analysis of Timber and Firewood used in Third Millennium Houses at Tell
Bderi/Northeast-Syria”, in Veenhof (ed.) 1996, 105-115.
Fiorina P. 1985, “Etnoarcheologia”, in AA.VV., La terra tra i due fiumi. Venti anni di archeologia italiana in
Medio Oriente, Torino, 72-74.
Fortin M. – Schwartz G.M. 2003, “The Middle Khabur in the Third Millennium B.C.” in E. Rova – H. Weiss
(eds.), The Origins of North Mesopotamian Civilization: Ninevite 5 Chronology, Economy, Society (Subartu
9), Turnhout, 221-248.
Forest J.-D. 1996, Mesopotamia, l’invenzione dello stato. VII-III millennio, Milano.
Gibson McG. 1975, Excavations at Nippur. Eleventh Season (Oriental Institute Communications 22), Chicago.
—— 1978, Excavations at Nippur. Twelfth Season (Oriental Institute Communications 23) Chicago.
Gibson et al. = Gibson McG. – Al-Azm A. – Reichel C. – Quntar S. – Franke J.A. – Khalidi L. – Hritz C. – Alta-
weel M. – Coyle C. – Colantoni C. – Tenney J. – Abdul Aziz G. – Hartnell T. 2002, “Hamoukar: A Summary
of Three Seasons of Excavation”, Akkadica 123, 11-34.
Green A. (ed.) 1993, The 6G Ash Tip and its Contents: Cultic and Administrative Discard from the Temple? (Abu
Salabikh Excavations 4), London.
Helwing B. 2003, “Feasts as a Social Dynamic in Prehistoric Western Asia – Three Case Studies from Syria and
Anatolia”, Paléorient 29/2, 63-85.
Henrickson E. 1981, “Non-Religious Residential Settlement Patterning in the Late Early Dynastic of the Diyala
Region”, Mesopotamia 16, 43-140.
Hole F. 1991, “Middle Khabur Settlement and Agriculture in the Ninevite 5 Period”, Bulletin of the Canadian
Society for Mesopotamian Studies 21, 17-29.
Lebeau M. 1993, Tell Melebiya. Cinq campagnes de recherches sur le Moyen Khabour (1984-1988) (Akkadica
Supplementum 9), Leuven.
—— 1996, “Les maisons de Melebiya. Approche fonctionnelle de l’habitat privé au IIIe millènaire av. notre ère
en haute Mésopotamie”, in Veenhof (ed.) 1996, 129-136.
—— 2006: “Les temples de Tell Beydar et leur environment immédiat à l’époque Early Jezirah III b”, in P.
Butterlin – M. Lebeau – J.-Y. Monchambert – J.L. Montero Fenollós – B. Muller (éds.), Les espaces Syro-
Mésopotamiens. Dimensions de l’expérience humaine au Proche Orient ancien. Volume d’Hommage offert à
Jean-Claude Margueron (Subartu 17), Turnhout, 101–140.
Lebeau M. – Suleiman A. 2005, “The City of the Early Jezirah IIIb Period”, in Lebeau – Suleiman (eds.) 2005,
76-90.
Lebeau M. – Suleiman A. (eds.) 1997, Tell Beydar, Three Seasons of Excavations (1992-1994). A Preliminary
Report (Subartu 3), Turnhout.
—— 2003, Tell Beydar, The 1995 - 1999 Seasons of Excavations: A Preliminary Report (Subartu 10), Turnhout.
—— 2005, Tell Beydar / Nabada. Une cité du Bronze ancien en Jezireh syrienne: 10 ans de travaux (1992–
2002). An Early Bronze Age City in the Syrian Jezirah: 10 Years of Research (1992–2002) (Documents d’ar-
chéologie syrienne 6), Damascus.
—— 2007, Tell Beydar. The 2000-2002 Seasons of Excavations, the 2003-2004 Seasons of Architectural Resto-
ration. A Preliminary Report (Subartu 15), Turnhout.
Luciani, M. 2005, “Area G. The Iron Age Productive Area (Period IX) and the Inhumation Cemetery (Period
X)”, in L. Bachelot – F.M. Fales (eds.), Tell Shiukh Fawqani 1994-1998, Padova, 720-996.
Margueron J.-Cl. 1982, Recherches sur les palais mésopotamiens de l'âge du bronze (Bibliothèque Archéolo-
gique et Historique 107), Paris.
—— 1984, “Mari, rapport préliminaire sur la campagne de 1982”, MARI. Annales de recherches interdisciplinai-
res 3, 7-39.
—— 2004, Mari, métropole de l’Euphrate, Paris.
Martín Galán R. – Al-Othman A. 2003, “Archeaology and Ethnography: Two Case Stories”, in Lebeau – Sulei-
man (eds.) 2003, 507-519.
Matney T. – Rainville L. (eds.) 2005, “Archaeological Investigations at Ziyaret Tepe, 2003-2004”, Anatolica 31,
19-68.
Matthiae P. – Pinnock F. – Scandone Matthiae G. 1993, Ebla. Alle origini della civiltà urbana (Catalogue of the
Exhibition Rome 1993), Milano.
Mazzoni S. (ed.) 2005, Tell Afis- Siria 2002-2004, Pisa.
McQuitty A. 1984, “An Ethnographic and Archaeological Study of Clay Ovens in Jordan”, Annual of the De-
partment of Antiquities of Jordan 28, 259-267.
—— 1993-94, “Ovens in Towns and Country”, Berytus 41, 53-76.
Milano L. 1989, “Le razioni alimentari nel Vicino Oriente antico: per un'articolazione storica del sistema”, in R.
Dolce – C. Zaccagnini (eds.), Il pane del re: accumulo e distribuzione dei cereali nell'Oriente antico, Bolo-
gna, 65-100.
—— 1990, Testi amministrativi: Assegnazioni di prodotti alimentari (Archivio L. 2712 - parte I) (Archivi Reali
di Ebla. Testi 9), Roma.
—— 1993-1997a, “Mehl”, in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 8, Berlin _ New
York, 22-31.
—— 1993-1997b, “Mühle A.I”, in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 8, Berlin _
New York, 393-400.
Milano L. – Rova E. 2001, “Preliminary Report on the 1997 Excavations of Ca' Foscari University of Venice at
Tell Beydar (Syria)”, Mesopotamia 36, 2001, 49-87.
—— 2003a, “Tell Beydar - Field I. Preliminary Report of the 1998 Season”, in M. Lebeau – A. Suleiman (eds.)
2003, 317-347.
—— 2003b, “Tell Beydar - Field I. Preliminary Report of the 1999 Season”, in M. Lebeau – A. Suleiman (eds.)
2003, 349-385.
—— 2006, “Le origini dell’urbanizzazione e le più antiche testimonianze epigrafiche a Tell Beydar (Siria)”, in
A. Zaccaria Ruggiu (ed.), Le Missioni archeologiche dell’Università Ca’ Foscari di Venezia. V Giornata di
Studio, Venezia, 31-36.
—— in press, “New Discoveries of the Ca’ Foscari University-Venice Team at Tell Beydar (Syria)”, in Pro-
ceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (ICAANE), Madrid,
3-8 April 2006.
Milano L. – Rova E. – Sténuit M-E. 2005, “Tell Beydar: The Early Phases”, in M. Lebeau – A. Suleiman (eds),
2005, 65-74.
Müller V. 1932, “Backofen”, in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 1, Berlin _
Leipzig, 388.
Mulder-Heymans N. 1997, “Bread Ovens in Syria”, Bulletin of Primitive Technology 13, 1997, 48-53.
—— 2002, “Archaeology, Experimental Archaeology and Ethnoarchaeology on Bread Ovens in Syria”, Civilisa-
tions 49, 197-221.
154 Elena Rova
Nissen H.J. 1968, “Survey of an Abandoned Village in Southern Iraq”, Sumer 24, 107-117.
Oates D. – Oates J. – McDonald H. 2001, Excavations at Tell Brak. Vol 2. Nagar in the Third Millennium,
Cambridge _ London.
Orthmann et al. = Orthmann W. – Hempelmann R. – Klein H. – Kühne C. – Novak M. – Pruss A. – Vila E. –
Weicken H.M. – Wener A. 1995, Ausgrabungen in Tell Chuera in Nordost-Syrien I. Vorbericht über die Gra-
bungskampagnen 1986 bis 1992, Saarbrücken.
Otto A. 2006, Alltag und Gesellschaft zur Spätbronzezeit: Eine Fallstudie aus Tall Bazi (Syrien) (Subartu 19),
Turnhout.
Owen D.I. – Mayr R.H. in press, The Garshana Archives (Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumer-
ology 3), Bethesda.
Parker et al. = Parker B.J. – Dodd L. – Creekmore A. – Healey E. – Painter C. 2006, “The Upper Tigris Archaeo-
logical Research Project (UTARP) – A Preliminary Report from the 2003 and 2004 Field Seasons at Kenan
Tepe”, Anatolica 32, 71-151.
Pfälzner P. 1996, “Activity Areas and the Social Organisation of Third Millennium B.C. Households”, in Veen-
hof (ed.) 1996, 117-136.
—— 2002, “Modes of Storage and the Development of Economic Systems in the Early Jezireh Period”, in L. al-
Gailani Werr – J. Curtis – A. McMahon – H. Martin – J. Oates – J. Reade (eds.), Of Pots and Plans: Papers
on the Archaeology and History of Mesopotamia and Syria Presented to David Oates in Honour of his 75.
Birthday, London, 259-286.
Pollock S. 1999, Ancient Mesopotamia. The Eden that Never Was, Cambridge.
Riehl S. 2001, “Vorbericht der archäobotanischen Bestandsaufnahme in Emar“, Baghdader Mitteilungen 32,
157-174.
Rothman M.S. 2002, Tepe Gawra: The Evolution of a Small, Prehistoric Center in Northern Iraq, Philadelphia.
Routledge B. 1998, “Making Nature Human: Small-Scale Production and Specialization at Tell Gudeda in the
Middle Khabour Valley”, in M. Fortin _ O. Aurenche (eds.), Natural Space, Inhabited Space in Northern
Syria (10th-2nd millennium B.C.) Actes du colloque Université Laval (Québec) 5-7 May 1997 (Bulletin of the
Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 33), Québec _ Lyon, 243-256.
Rova E. 2008, “Seals Impressions from Tell Beydar (2002-2006 Seasons)”, in M. Lebeau – A. Suleiman (eds.),
Beydar Studies 1 (Subartu 21), Turnhout, 63-194.
Salonen A. 1964, “Die Öfen der alten Mesopotamier”, Baghdader Mitteilungen 3, 100-124.
Samuel D. 1999, “Bread Making and Social Interactions at the Amarna Workmen’s Village, Egypt”, World Ar-
chaeology 31, 121-144.
Schawe J. 1932, “Backen, Bäckerei“, in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 1,
Berlin _ Leipzig, 387-388.
Schwartz G. – Klucas E. 1998, “Spatial Analysis and Social Structure at Tell al-Raqa’i”, in M. Fortin _ O.
Aurenche (eds.), Natural Space, Inhabited Space in Northern Syria (10th-2nd millennium B.C.) Actes du col-
loque Université Laval (Québec) 5-7 May 1997 (Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies
33), Québec _ Lyon, 199-207.
Speiser E.A. 1935, Excavations at Tepe Gawra, I, Philadelphia.
Stone E.C. 1987, Nippur Neighborhoods (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 44), Chicago.
Suleiman A. 2007, “Temples B and C, Storage Building and Artisanal Quarter (Fields F3, M ό O, Seasons 2000-
2002”, in Lebeau – Suleiman (eds.) 2003, 85-98.
Sweet L.E. 1960, Tell Toqaan: A Syrian Village (Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology. University
of Michigan 14), Ann Arbor.
Tunca Ö. 1984, L’architecture religieuse protodynastique en Mésopotamie (Akkadica Supplementum 2), Leuven.
Vallet R. 1998, “L’urbanisme colonial urukien, l’exemple de Djebel Aruda”, in M. Lebeau (ed.), About Subartu.
Studies devoted to Upper Mesopotamia (Subartu 4, I), 53-87.
van Buren E. D. 1952, “Places of Sacrifice (“Opferstätten”)”, Iraq 14, 76-92.
van der Steen E.J. 1991, “The Iron Age Bread Ovens from Tell Deir ‘Alla”, Annual of the Department of Anti-
quities of Jordan 35, 135-153.
Van Driel G. 2002, “Jebel Aruda: Variations on a Late Uruk Domestic Theme”, in J.-N. Postgate (ed.), Artefacts
of Complexity, Tracking the Uruk in the Near East, Oxford, 191-205.
Veenhof K.R. (ed.) 1996, Houses and Households in Ancient Mesopotamia (40 Rencontre Assyriologique Inter-
nationale), Istanbul.
Wulff H.E. 1966, Traditional Crafts of Persia, Cambridge, Mass.
Yoffee N. – Clark J.J. (eds.) 1993, Early Stages in the Evolution of Mesopotamian Civilization. Soviet Excava-
tions in Northern Iraq, Tucson _ London.
156 Elena Rova
Table I. Comparative features of the Field I tannurs at Tell Beydar.

Table I (continued). Comparative features of the Field I tannurs at Tell Beydar.

158 Elena Rova
a b
Fig. 1. Examples of modern tannurs: a) from north-eastern Syria; b) from south-eastern Turkey.
From Martín Galán – Al-Othman 2003, fig. 5; Parker et al. 2006, fig. 7.
a b
Fig. 2. Modern tannurs cones: a) from Palestine; b) from north-eastern Syria.
From Dalman 1935, fig 19; Martín Galán – Al-Othman 2003, fig. 5.
Fig. 3. Schematic section of modern underground tannur. From Dalman 1935, fig. 18.
Fig. 4. Different types of modern bread-ovens in use in the Near East: a) tannūr; b) tabun; c) sağ;
d) wagdiah/arsah; e) furn. From Dalman 1935, fig. 17, 2; fig. 12, 2, 1; fig. 17, 2; fig. 28.
Fig. 5. Mid third-millennium BC tannurs from Tell Brak (north-eastern Syria); notice the vent-hole on the
bottom, and the location within a small “niche”. From Oates – Oates – McDonald 2001, fig. 78.
Fig. 6. Different settings of a tannur in relation to the floor of the room, according to E.J. van der Steen: a)
“level”; b) on a platform; c) dug-in; d) in a “workpit”. Adapted from van der Steen 1981, figs. 2-5.
160 Elena Rova
Fig. 7. Example of sherds-and-clay-lined tannur from Tell Deir ‘Alla.

From van der Steen 1991, pl. I, 1.
Fig. 8. Sketch of “double-skin” tannur. From Dalman 1935, fig. 17, 6.
Fig. 9. Sequences of successive tannurs from Aqaba/’Ayla. From McQuitty 1993-94, figs. 9-10.
Fig. 10. Plan of the Phase 4 Northern Building in Field I at Tell Beydar,
with location of the main tannurs concentrations.
162 Elena Rova
Fig. 11. Plan of the Phase 3 Northern Building (detail) with “tannur room” 61859 and adjacent spaces.
Fig. 12. View of the western part of room 61559 with the large tannurs 61908 and 61934.
Fig. 13. View of “tannur room” 61859 (Phase 4a-3) from W.
Fig. 14. View of the Phase 2 layout of “tannur room” 61859: room 61409 with
fireplace 61807 (on the right) and room 61425 with tannur 61450 (on the left).
164 Elena Rova
Fig. 16. Fragments of wall of tannur 61851, showing

groups of parallel finger marks and modelled, thickened
bottom rim.
Fig. 15. Small tannur-like installations in
room 87560 (Phase 4a).
Fig. 18. Detail of the wall of tannur 61860, showing rope

impressions and shallow finger marks.
Fig. 17. View of a tannur from another ex-
cavation area (Field O) at Tell Beydar,
showing groups of parallel finger marks.
Notice the parallel horizontal lines which
mark the join between different bands of
clay.
Fig. 19. Bottom of tannur 61851, showing oblique Fig. 20. View of tannur 61213, from above, show-
setting of the tannur cone (?) and grit base, and wall ing base of basalt stones.
of tannur 61883, showing carefully smoothed and
burnt inner surface (above).
Fig. 21. Detail of the western section of quadrant 102.040 d, showing tannur
9018 standing on brick platform, pottery sherds surrounding the upper part of
the cone wall, and ash and debris filling.
Fig. 22. Detail of room 61859 in course of exca- Fig. 23. The same area as in Fig. 22, showing tannur
vation, showing tannur 61822 built on earlier 61805 and bench 61838 covering tannur 87199 and
tannur 87199, and the location of tannur 61805 delimiting tannur 61822 from tannur 61823.
on an earlier cut-in wall.
166 Elena Rova
Fig. 24. The base of tannur 61934 surrounded by Fig. 25. The wall of tannur 87199 surrounded by
a layer of pottery sherds. pottery sherds cemented with gypsum.
Fig. 27. Tannur 61805 from North, with accumula-

tion of superimposed ash and clay layers on the
background.
Fig. 26. Sequence of tannurs 61860, 87122 and 61864
in the south-western corner of room 61859. Notice the
small jar with artificially cut rim inside tannur 61864.
Fig. 28. a) Spaces 87178 and 87409; b) space 87178 with detail of small plastered basins.
a b
Fig. 29. a) Basin 87466; b) basin 87522, both in space 61443.
Fig. 30. Large domed brick ovens in courtyard 70 of the Zimri-Lim palace at Mari.
From Margueron 1982, fig. 182.
Fig. 31. Plan of the Tell

Beydar “Acropolis” (2002),
with location of the “bakery
area” adjacent to temples B
and C (EJ IIIb period).
168 Elena Rova
Fig. 32. View of the “grinding room” 15005 of Fig. 33. View of the “tannur rooms” 15042 and 15002
the Beydar Field O “bakery”. of the Beydar Field O “bakery” with adjacent street.
Fig. 34. Plan of the “Oval Enclosure” of area TC at Tell Brak. From Emberling – McDonald 2004, fig. 43.
Fig. 35. View of Room 2 of the “Oval En-

closure” of area TC at Tell Brak. From Em-
berling et al. 1999, fig. 18. Fig. 36. View of Room 1 of the “Oval Enclosure” of area TC
at Tell Brak and detail of the plastered installations. From Em-
berling et al. 1999, figs 15-16.
Fig. 37. a) Plan of the area of Steinbau I at Tell Chuera; b) detail of the phase 7b1
layout of room 115. From Orthmann et al. 1995, 28-36, Beilage 3, Abb. 8.
Fig. 38. a) Plan of Steinbau 2, square IV7 at Tell Chuera; b) view of rooms 11-13.
From Orthman et al. 1955, Beilage 13, Taf. 11b.
170 Elena Rova
Fig. 39. a) Plan of the “Résidence aux installations artisanales”; b) view of the
“tannur room” XII. From Margueron 2004, figs. 141, 148.
Fig. 40. Plan of level 1 at Tell Gudeda. From Routledge 1998, fig. 1.
Fig. 41. a) Plan of the Late Bronze Age palace at Nuzi; b) detail plan of sector E with
“tannur room” R 118. From Margueron 1982, figs. 302, 308.
View publication stats

Rova Tannurs Tannur Concentrations and Centralised Bread Production at Tell Beydar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rova Tannurs Tannur Concentrations and Centralised Bread Production at Tell Beydar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Tannurs, Tannur Concentrations and Centralised Bread Production at Tell

Conference Paper · March 2014

Georgian-Italian Shida Kartli archaeological project View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

History of the Ancient Near East / Monographs

A publication grant from

© S.A.R.G.O.N. Editrice e Libreria

Distribuzione / Distributed by:

Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana 46590-0275 USA

Stampa a cura di / Printed by:

vii LUCIO MILANO, Introduction

Tannurs and other types of bread-ovens in the Near East

Tannurs typology, technical features, and location

Tannurs fillings and associated finds: a centralised bread production area?

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ABBREVIATIONS

CAD = The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, Chicago _ Glückstadt, 1956_ .

Table I. Comparative features of the Field I tannurs at Tell Beydar.

Table I (continued). Comparative features of the Field I tannurs at Tell Beydar.

Fig. 7. Example of sherds-and-clay-lined tannur from Tell Deir ‘Alla.

Fig. 8. Sketch of “double-skin” tannur. From Dalman 1935, fig. 17, 6.

Fig. 13. View of “tannur room” 61859 (Phase 4a-3) from W.

Fig. 16. Fragments of wall of tannur 61851, showing

Fig. 18. Detail of the wall of tannur 61860, showing rope

Fig. 27. Tannur 61805 from North, with accumula-

Fig. 31. Plan of the Tell

Fig. 35. View of Room 2 of the “Oval En-

View publication stats

You might also like