Wdor 2018 48 2 249

Anatolian Wine in the Middle Bronze Age
Gojko Barjamovic and Andrew Fairbairn
Abstract
The Assyrian merchant records from Kültepe near Kayseri contain the first textual references
to the production and trade in wine in Central Anatolia. Predictably, those records are mainly
of a commercial nature and provide information about quantity, containers, and price. Some-
times, they also mention geographical origin and give occasional hints to the consumption and
production of wine. References are scarce. Only 33 texts out of ca. 12,500 mention wine (see
Appendix 1). Fortunately, the limited textual evidence can be connected to a broader material
by McMaster University on September 29, 2019. For personal use only.
record that includes an excavated corpus of ceramic and metal containers for the storage and
mixing, sieving and serving of drink, as well as an extensive pictorial record of cultic libation
and drink. A growing archaeobotanical record adds new data on the oenology of the period.
This article examines all four sets of evidence dating to the first half of the Middle Bronze Age.
Die Welt des Orients 2018.48:249-284.
It begins with an analysis of the written sources and proceeds to integrate the archaeobotan-
ical record, physical artifacts, and pictorial representations. Ethnographic data is discussed
as part of the final analysis to provide an interpretational framework for parts of the material.
§ 1 The textual record

The common Assyrian dialectal form of the word for both grapes and wine is
kerānum. The byform karānum is attested less often. The 33 records referring
to wine correspond to roughly one quarter percent of a total currently avail-
able corpus of ca. 12,500 Old Assyrian texts. Twenty-six additional mentions
of wine or grape occur in loan contracts in references to calendric time “qetip
karānim” (“the picking of the grapes”). The Anatolian official title of “super
visor of grapes/wines” (rabi karānim) appears once, as does the “slithering wine
snake” in the context of a magical text.1
We are grateful to R. C. Hunt, A. W. Lassen and M. Weeden for volunteering references and con-
structive input. We are grateful to F. Kulakoğlu for allowing us to use a number of images from
Kulakoğlu and Kangal 2010 to illustrate the rich record of ceramic and metal vessels at Kültepe.
1 The term is constructed with ana, ina and urki (cf. Veenhof 2008: 239). For ana qatāp kerānim
(“at the picking of the grapes”): Kt 92/k 1037. For ina qetip karānim (“by the picking of the
grapes”): BIN 4, 186a/b; KTK 80. For ana qetip kerānim (“at the picking of the grapes”): AKT 1,
4; ICK 3, 31a/b; I 584; NBC 4004; Kt b/k 54b; Kt f/k 52; Kt k/k 59 (broken); Kt m/k 172. For ina
qetip kerānim (“by the picking of the grapes”): AKT 9, 85; Kt k/k 34; Kt m/k 171; Kt z/t 14; Kt
83/k 282; Kt 87/k 272; Kt 87/k 336; Kt 91/k 128a/b; Kt 92/k 1041. For iqqitap kerānim (“by the
picking of the grapes”): Kt 93/k 148. For urki qetip kerānim (“after the picking of the grapes”):
Kt d/k 16a/b; Kt 87/k 104. For urki kerānim (“after the grapes”): Kt m/k 101; Kt m/k 174a/b.
For ina warad kerānim (“by the descent of the grapes”): Kt d/k 8b. For rabi karānim (“chief of
the wines/grape””): Kt 93/k 946. Mention of the “wine snake” (ṣerru kerānim, lit. “snake of the
grapes”) occurs in the birth incantation Kt 90 178, cf. Barjamovic 2015, text 1a.
Die Welt des Orients, 48. Jahrgang, S. 249–284, ISSN (Printausgabe): 0043–2547, ISSN (online): 2196–9019
© 2018 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
© Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen, 2018, ISSN 0043-2547
250 Gojko Barjamovic and Andrew Fairbairn
In spite of this limited number of references, one can tease out certain pat-
terns. Seventeen records listed in Table 1 make explicit mention of the source of
the wine in question. Fourteen of them refer to the Jazira and the region south
of the Taurus, and only three (less than one in five) mention wine from Central
Anatolia (fig. 1). It is difficult to know what to make of this observation, but the
geographical distribution in the texts is consistent with the archaeobotanical
evidence in locating the core area of production south of the Taurus.2 However,
the records also follow the general flow of trade in the records from Kaneš and
may therefore simply be reflecting this flow. Wine occurs mainly in relation to
trade and not consumption and one would not expect direct reference to a local
production in Kaneš where almost all the texts come from. The exception is in
calendric contexts with multiple references to grape harvest listed in Table 5.
References to geographical origin in the trade records instead occur only in
relation to imports. The region of import seems to follow the established pic-
ture of wine in contemporary and later texts in other corpora. Production is

associated primarily with the border region between Turkey and Syria, proba-
bly the Tur Abdin mountains and the upper Euphrates in particular.3
Table 1: Geographical origin of wine in the Old Assyrian texts

Place # Text ref. Notes
Burhu 1 Kt c/k 441 Southern Turkey or the Jazira
Burullum/ 2 O3675 Southern Turkey or the Jazira. Also occurs as an
Burallum Kt c/k 399 origin of wine in a text from Tell Leilān in Syria,
cf. Ismail 1991 no. 23
Hahhum 1 Kt 89/k 255 On the western bank of the Euphrates; perhaps by
association only.
Mamma 3 Kt 89/k 367 Unlikely also Kt n/k 1452 – reference is indirect
Kt 94/k 667 Fine sweet wine (SIG5 ṭābum)
Kt 94/k 676 Sweet wine (ṭābum)
Šehwa 1 Kt c/k 441 Southern Turkey or the Jazira
Šuhru 1 Kt c/k 441 Southern Turkey or the Jazira
Šunukam 1 Kt c/k 441 Southern Turkey or the Jazira
Panaka 1 Kt c/k 216 Southern Turkey or the Jazira
Šalatuwar 1 Kt t/k 1 The two records refer to the same incident
Kt t/k 25
Tegarama 2 Kt a/k 345 South/East of the Taurus
Kt 93/k 604
Tuhpiya 1 Kt 85/k 27 Central Anatolia
Zalpa 1 CCT 1, 29 On the west bank of the Euphrates.
Wahšušana? 1 KUG 41 Central Anatolia. Unclear context.
2 Discussed in Miller 2008 and § 2 below.

3 Michel 1997: 104–105.
Anatolian Wine in the Middle Bronze Age251
In addition to the records from Kültepe summarized in Table 1, the text ARM
23.494 from Mari records the delivery of wine from Uršu in southern Turkey
on the western bank of the Euphrates south of Hahhum,4 and M.7536 refers to
wine travelling on a boat down the Euphrates from Zalpa to Carchemish.5 In
general, texts from Mari show that wines coming from Carchemish were con-
sidered to be of particularly high quality and the city may have been a regional
market for the product.6
The only Assyrian texts that refer explicitly to the transport of wine have
Kaneš as their final destination but this is surely due to a bias of recovery. As
for quality, Kt 94/k 667 and 676 refer to two separate but related shipments of
wines from Mamma. They talk of “sweet wine” and “fine sweet wine” respec-
tively. The same two texts also refer to a specific type of container called an
aluārum used to transport the wine. The word does not exist in the CAD, but
the clear writing found in the two texts allows us to collate and identify two
further references among previously edited records KTS 2, 14 and BIN 4, 219.
In addition, the unpublished text Kt 93/k 604 contains a reference to eight such
containers, possibly in relation to the city of Tegarama.7 Five attestations in
total refer to the aluārum in relation to wine.
Table 2: Containers for wine (and perhaps beer) at Kültepe

Text Comment
BIN 4, 219 aluārum (l. 18–20 read: a-lu-a-ra-tim! ke-ra-nam ṣú-ha-ru-ú na-áš-ú-šu-um)
KUG 41 karpum
TMH 1, 25 g kerrum (by association only and probably used for beer)
KTS 2, 14 aluārum (l. 10–11 read: [a]-lu-a-ra-tim [š]a kà-ra-nim)
Kt a/k 1060 kūtum
Kt m/k 178 karpum
Kt n/k 1452 karpum
Kt 85/k 27 zi-qu-qá-tim ša karpat ke-ra-na-am
Kt 88/k 71 kerrum (by association only and probably used for beer)
Kt 89/k 239 kukkubum
Kt 93/k 604 aluārum
Kt 94/k 667 aluārum and kukanninum of the middātum (measure) of wine [could a
kukanninum refer to the device on/in which to transport measured quanti-
ties of wine?].
Kt 94/k 676 aluārum
4 Barjamovic 2011: 200.

5 op. cit. p. 207 ff.
6 Cf. Michel 1996: 387 f. and Michel 2009: 211–213 for a concise overview of the wine trade in
the Taurus piedmont.
7 The text is quoted here courtesy C. Michel, cf. Barjamovic 2011 n. 421.
Another common container is the karpum or “jug” with four references (fig. 22).
The kūtum, kukkubum and kukanninum of unknown shape occur once each
(Table 2). Finally, wine appears twice in contexts that also refer to the use of a
kerrum, but the latter has been shown to serve as a standard vessel for beer in
the Old Assyrian records, and even to appear as synonymous term for beer in
the texts.8
Table 3: Quantities of wine mentioned in the texts from Kültepe

Text Comment
Kt a/k 345 [x+]7 sila and 1 sila of wine from Tegarama
Kt a/k 1060 Seven kūtu-vessels of wine
Kt c/k 367 Three kukkubu-vessels of wine
Kt c/k 639a Eight sila of wine
Kt m/k 178 Thirty jugs (DUG ke-ra-na-am) of wine
Kt n/k 1452 Seven jugs (kà-ar-pát ke-ra-na-am) of wine

Kt 85/k 27 Two ziqququ of winejugs
Kt 89/k 239 One kukkubu-vessel of wine
Kt 89/k 367 Four homers of wine from Mamma (4 e-ma-re ka-ra-na iš-tù Ma-ma)
Kt 93/k 604 Eight aluāru-containers of wine from Mamma (same transaction as
Kt 93/k 731)
Kt 93/k 731 Eight aluāru-containers of wine from Mamma (same transaction as
Kt 93/k 604)
Kt 94/k 731 The same eight aluāru-vessels of wine from Mamma
Kt 94/k 667 Four aluāru-vessels of wine from Mamma. In addition, PN sealed the
kukanninu of the middātu (measure) of wine [could the measure refer to
the four containers?].
Kt 94/k 676 One aluāru-vessel of wine from Mamma in addition to the four containers
mentioned in Kt 94/k 667
KUG 41 Ten “jugs” (10 kà-ar-pé-e) of wine
A comparison between containers and references to quantity (Table 3) suggests

that an aluārum would hold around one sila (roughly a liter) of liquid. Com-
pared to the prices recorded in Kt 94/k 667 and Kt 94/k 676, this would give a
price of a couple of shekels of silver per sila of wine. The price is comparable
to that of a sheep or six kilograms of wool.9 If the estimate is correct, imported
8 TMH 1, 25 g and Kt 88/k 71. The use of kerrum in the Old Assyrian records was first discussed
by Michel 1997: 105. The more recently published reference to drinking straws (qanuwe ša
kerātim) in Kt 88/k 71 l. 37 supports this identification. The common translation of kerrum
as “cup” does not seem to correspond to usage in the Assyrian trade records where it occurs
as a container in distributions of drink (AKT 8, 143) and often appears among gifts to guards,
guides and envoys, cf. e. g. Barjamovic 2011 but note the problematic association between ker-
rum and wine on p. 26 and n. 725. For a note on the use of the vessel in Mari, cf. Durand 1989.
9 Cf. Garelli 1963: 312 f. (sheep) and Lassen 2010: 172 (wool).
wine was clearly a luxury commodity (Table 4). We may link this to the obser-
vation that two of the royal letters preserved at Kültepe (Kt 85/k 27; Kt 85/t 17)
out of a total of about a handful refer to wine. Both contexts are heavily broken,
but support the general association between wine and royalty in ancient Near
Eastern records. Local wine, on the other hand, may have been abundant and
affordable in Anatolia, but we should not expect references to it in the com-
mercial records.
Table 4: Price of wine in the Old Assyrian texts

Text Comment
CCT 1, 29 2 shekels of silver
O3675 Probably 1.5 shekels of silver (and five pounds of copper for stabling)
TMH 1.25 g 3.5 shekels of silver
Kt a/k 345 Perhaps 80 pounds of copper for 8 or more sila of wine (the text is broken)
Kt a/k 1060 Perhaps 200 pounds of copper for 7 kūtu-vessels of wine (unclear)
Kt c/k 367 9 pounds of copper for 3 kukkubu-vessels of wine
Kt c/k 399 3 shekels of silver
Kt c/k 441 2.25 shekels (of tin?), 3 shekels of tin, 3 shekels of tin, 5 shekels of tin
Kt c/k 639a 25 shekels (of tin?) for 8 sila of wine and 8 sila of flour and expenses
Kt c/k 721 105 shekels (of tin?)
Kt t/k 1 7 pounds of šikku-copper (referring to the same incident as Kt t/k 25)
Kt t/k 25 7 pounds of copper (referring to the same incident as Kt t/k 1)
Kt u/k 5 4 shekels of silver
Kt 88/k 71 172.5 grains of silver
Kt 89/k 255 1 shekel of silver
Kt 89/k 239 3.5 pounds of copper
Kt 91/k 382 [x+]5 pounds of copper, 31.5 pounds (of copper)
Kt 94/k 667 3.5 pounds of good native copper and 1 shekel of silver for four
aluāru-containers
Kt 94/k 676 1 pound of good native copper for a single aluāru (perhaps equal to
2 shekels of silver based on Kt 94/k 667)
§ 1.1 Textual references to wine in the agricultural economy

Assyrian commerce in Anatolia did not require regular contact with the rural
population and its subsistence economy.10 Even the trade in wool – a commod-
ity sometimes acquired in enormous quantities in the areas north-east and far
west of Kanesh – was handled through local palatial officials.11 The founda-
10 Dercksen 2008a, 2008b, Shi 2015.

11 Lassen 2010.
tional role of agriculture is instead reflected through dozens of memoranda

referring to fuel and foodstuff purchased by the Assyrian merchants as well
as the common reference to agricultural products and events in the Anatolian
debt-notes and their dating formulae. In addition, several Anatolian officials
with titles of the type “chief … ” (rabi + noun in the genitive) refer to agricul-
ture and husbandry, including barley, produce, oil, threshing floors, gardeners,
herdsmen and oxen.12
Our knowledge of the countryside, the villages, farmers, and tenants who
produced the staple crops is rudimentary at best, but much work has been
done in recent years. Dercksen worked on the agricultural terminology and
the estates belonging to the urban elite and the palace.13 Shi looked at the col-
lective villages and varying forms of governance in rural communities around
Kanesh.14 Barjamovic engaged with the question of population and carrying
capacity.15 And Veenhof assembled an agricultural calendar that reveals pat-
terns of seasonality and the emphasis on certain crops.16

We know from a variety of sources that the Assyrians bought their food and
drink from the local population alongside lamp oil, firewood and other prod-
ucts needed to maintain daily activities. They sometimes acquired products
directly from the producers, but mostly they seem to have relied upon inter-
mediary local vendors and transporters. Even if they were allowed to own
agricultural land in Kanesh (which is unclear), they probably considered the
acquisition and exploitation of fields as a bad investment of their time during
the season when they would also travel and do business.
Only late Ib texts mention Assyrians investing in land and orchards and a
direct engagement in the plucking of sheep.17 A special situation arose when
Assyrian merchants acquired usufruct of farmland through default loans.
Kt a/k 583 relates to a situation where an Anatolian debtor, whose fields had
been pledged, fails to return his loan of 12 tons of copper; he offers to put at
the disposal of his creditor: “fields and orchards for a value of 20 minas of sil-
ver or even more”.18 In this case, the merchant refused the offer.
12 Erol 2007.
13 Dercksen 2004, 2008a, 2008b.
14 Shi 2015.
15 Barjamovic 2014.
16 Veenhof 2008.
17 Barjamovic, Hertel and Larsen 2012: 80.
18 Veenhof 2008: 148–149.
Table 5: An outline of the Kaneš agricultural calendar as seen through “events” listed in d
ating
formulae
Event Translation Turkish Tradition Time Attestations
qitip kerānim Picking of grapes bağ bozumu September– 26
October
erāšum Ploughing çift zamanı October– 8
November
serdum Olives 1
inūmi uṣṣiu etc. Sprouting 2
(of barley)
buqlātum Sprouting 4
(of barley)
daš’ū Spring 17
kubur uṭṭitim Ripening of grain 7
harpū Summer 37
ṣibit niggalim Seizing of the orak zamanı July–August 22
sickle
eṣādum Harvesting 5
ebūrum Harvest 15
adrum Threshing floor harman zamanı August–September 22
buqūnum Plucking (of wool) 1
References to agricultural activities are therefore mostly indirect and occur

in dated debt-notes. These were discussed by Veenhof,19 who sequenced loan
terms by attaching the listed agricultural events to the solar year. Dates range
from the time of ploughing and seeding to the picking of the grapes and beyond.
There are no dates attested for wintertime. Clues for the relative dating events
were provided by contracts in which the debts consist of two different com-
modities with separate payment terms, contracts which stipulate payment in
several installments, and contracts which mention months and perhaps weeks
to date the onset of liability. Table 5 lists agricultural events occurring in date
formula complied by Veenhof with an updated number of attestations. It also
shows the traditional Turkish designations for the same or similar phases of
the agricultural cycle as cited by Landsberger in 1949. The sequence and dates
of the agricultural events in Turkey have been discussed in works by Hoffner
1974 and Yakar 2000.
19 Veenhof 2008: 238–246.
The contracts reveal another important pattern, namely that loans due dur-
ing the summer and coinciding with the completion of the harvest were paid
mostly in barley. Loans due in autumn that form the second large group of
loans coincide with the time of the grape harvest. Such loans are instead for-
mulated in silver.20
This pattern suggests not only that grapes were a cash crop, but also implies
the existence of a cash market that would allow the conversion from crop to
silver. This observation holds important implications for the nature of the
economy in Kaneš and supports a notion gained from memoranda found in
the houses of the Assyrian merchants that foodstuff was marketed locally and
could be bought with cash.
§ 1.2 Textual references to wine in feast and ritual

A number of texts dealing with guards also mention gifts made of drink, but
these probably always refer to beer. The term kerr(āt)um is often translated ‘jar’
or ‘flagon’ but frequently occurs in contexts where the word also implies for-
malized consumption of beer.21 When an Assyrian trader bought an animal,

completed a journey, crossed a river, or arranged a meeting with an important
local official, expenses for kerrum were recorded. Similarly, texts show that the
Assyrian merchants regularly offered kerrum alongside other gifts to guards
during their travels in addition to standard road-fees.22
Instead, a liquid that presumably was wine occurs in the ritualized context of
swearing an oath in the following passage from a draft for a commercial treaty,
which quotes a local ruler: “He raised his hand to Aššur, to the Stormgod, to the
Netherworld, and to the spirits of his deceased father. Crossing his table and his
throne, he filled his cauldron and his cup, then he poured it out. The Prince said: ‘I
appealed to Alsui himself, and he shall destroy me!’ They (the Assyrian dignitaries)
said: ‘If we discard your (pl.) oath, may our blood be poured out as (from) the cup.” 23
20 Op. cit., p. 243.

21 Michel 1997.
22 Barjamovic 2011, §1.5.
23 Kt n/k 794: (29) a-na A-šur a-na dIM (30) a-na er-ṣí-tim ù e-ṭá-/me (31) ša a-be-šu : qá-sú (32)
i-ší : pá-šu-ur-šu (33) ú ku-sí-šu : i-ba-lá-ká-at ru-qá-am (34) ù kà-sú ú-ma-li-ma (35) it-bu-uk
um-ma ru-ba-/ú-um-ma (36 lo. e.) Al?-sú-i-ma (37) as-li-ma! (38) ù-sà-pì-hi-ni (39 le. e.) um-ma
šu-nu-ma šu-ma (40) ma-mì-it-ku-nu ni-na-dí (41) da-ma-ni ki-ma kà-sí-im (42) lu ta-be-ek.
The difficult text was edited in Çeçen and Hecker 1995 who left parts of the passage untrans-
lated. The reading of al in 36 is uncertain, and as-li-IZ in (37) must be emended to as-li-ma.
The verb sullû according to the CAD exists only in the D and Dtn stems, but note KTH 14: 25
(as-li-ma); Kt c/k 697: 13 (ta-as-li-a-ni); Kt c/k 848b: 17 (as-li-šu-nu) (courtesy Dercksen); Kt
n/k 1474: 6 (ta-as-li-a-ni-ma) (courtesy Veenhof) and AKT 6c, 645: 4 (ta-as-li-a-ni-ma). Alsui
means ‘Great’ in Urartean and perhaps also Hurrian. It could represent a divine name with an
emphatic –ma rather than a 1csGprt verb linked to (37) by a copula. Or the two words spoken
by the prince might not be in Akkadian at all.
The reference to a ‘cup’ (kāsum) and a ‘cauldron’ (ruqqum) suggests that the
inventory of vessels used to serve the liquid was different from the vats and
kerrum used for beer, as does the symbolic association between blood and the
liquid that is poured out in libation. The use of different vessels for drinking
wine and beer are discussed under § 3.
Unlike beer, wine also does not normally appear in direct reference to drink-
ing and inebriation, although two related letters show that it was sometimes
consumed in great quantity.24 The first letter reads: “Here, Luhrahšu ‘in his
cups’ said to the general: ‘You will see that I shall do as a merchant in the cara-
van circuit!’ When the general told me this, I replied: ‘If he really said that, I shall
write to the elders, so they can pursue the matter to the end!’ The general spoke:
‘My dear son, don’t write anything.’ And he toasted Aššur and Šamaš to make me
glad and drank twenty times with me.” The second letter from the same sender
expands upon the incident, stating that: “Watniahšu made me drink 30 jugs
(DÚG) of wine that the General had brought.”

Two texts mention wine together with acorn (allānu).25 In VS 26, 127 the
association is indirect (see Appendix 1), but Kt 88/k 71 refers to “[x] shekels (of
silver) for acorn and wine” on a list of expenses for a feast, as if the two consti-
tute a notional pair. How acorn and wine may have been consumed together
is unclear, but a local tradition of eating acorn exists in the region today,26 and
the link between acorn and drink is reflected in the ceramic assemblage from
Kültepe.27
§ 2 A
rchaeobotanical evidence for the exploitation of grapes in
MBA Central Anatolia
Wine is a difficult substance to track down in the material record as it is not

directly preserved in a readily identifiable form. The most convincing means
is to identify chemical residues, such as tartaric, malic and pyruvic acids, in
archaeological vessels – an approach that has demonstrated the presence of
wine from as early as the Neolithic of Iran,28 Georgia,29 and Late Chalcolithic
Greece.30 Wine residue analysis of pre-Iron Age vessels is yet to be done in
Anatolia.
24 Kt m/k 14 and Kt m/k 178 (courtesy K. Hecker) were discussed in Larsen 2015: 248 f.
25 For discussion of this identification, see Fairbairn et al. forthcoming with further references.
26 Mason and Nesbitt 2009.
27 See e. g. fig. 27 and note two additional examples in Kulakoğlu and Kangal 2010: 268. A med-
ical intention behind the mixture of wine and acorn cannot be immediately excluded.
28 McGovern et al. 1996.
29 McGovern et al. 2017.
30 Garnier et al. 2016.
More commonly recorded are the physical remains of grapes, usually the
seeds/pips, but also occasionally whole fruits, stalks (pedicels) and even the
pressed skins,31 in the case of Anatolia’s dryland archaeological record pre-
served due to charring (partial burning). Such remains, as with palaeoenviron-
mental evidence from pollen cores, largely identify general patterns of grape
use or its presence in the environment rather than the production or use of spe-
cific products such as wine. A key problem in using archaeobotanical remains
is that grapes can be used in many ways and the archaeobotanical record can’t
distinguish between these uses, for example between seeds from grapes eaten
fresh or dried as raisins or pressings resulting from juice extraction for drink-
ing fresh or wine production.32. Even so, the archaeobotanical record provides
a useful baseline, extending over several thousand years and across the ancient
Near East, for understanding grape production and use against which the spe-
cific evidence for wine can be considered.
An important point to consider in the long term record of grape consump-

tion is that much of Anatolia’s central plateau and eastern highlands lies out-
side the natural distribution range of wild grape (Vitis vinifera var. sylvestris), a
plant found around Anatolia’s coastal ranges and the Zagros mountains.33 All
the grapes used there must have been derived from plants introduced to and
cultivated in the region, and/or traded into the region as fresh fruit or in pre-
served form such as raisins, whereas grapes could have come from cultivated
or wild stands in the coastal zones, the Zagros, the Levant and the Caucasus.
Table 6: Chronological and Geographical distribution of archaeobotanical remains of grapes in

Central and Western Anatolia.
Sites within the native distribu- Sites outside the native distribu-
tion of wild grape (coastal) tion of wild grape (central plateau)
Period Number Number % of sites Number Number % of sites
of sites of sites with of sites of sites with
with grapes with grapes
grapes grapes
Neolithic/ 5 4 80 5 0 0
Chalcolithic
Early Bronze Age 6 5 83 6 5 83
Middle Bronze Age 3 2 67 4 4 100
Late Bronze Age 3 3 100 5 5 100
31 Miller 2008, Margaritis and Jones 2006.

32 Miller 2008.
33 See Zohary et al. 2012, Map 16.
Table 6 summaries grape finds from central and western Anatolia showing the
ubiquity of grape exploitation in the area of its wild presence from the Neolithic,
including sites such as Ilıpınar and Kümtepe, yet its absence in the central pla-
teau beyond where wild plants are not found. In the Early Bronze Age (EBA)
that changes with 5 out of 6 sites in central Anatolia showing grape exploita-
tion, a pattern that continues in the Middle Bronze Age (MBA) and Late Bronze
Age. Dated finds show that grape was being used widely beyond its natural dis-
tribution zone in the first centuries of the Early Bronze Age (EBA I), with evi-
dence from Hacılar Büyük Hüyük in the Lake District34 and Küllüoba35 in the
western plateau from around 3,000 BC, matching evidence at Arslantepe to the
east.36 Somewhat later, evidence shows the use grapes at Kültepe from at least
the EBII (Level 14, ca. 2,500 BC) into the MBA.37 This evidence from central
and western Anatolia supports the pattern of expansion of grape use during
the EBA identified by Miller38 in a wider regional analysis of grape use over
SW Asia.39 It should be noted that archaeobotanical evidence for the EBA, and
especially the Chalcolithic, in central and western Anatolia is sparse in compar-
ison to other regions, notably northern Mesopotamia, and this general pattern
requires testing with a larger sample of sites.
Archaeological grape assemblages in Anatolia, and indeed across the region,

typically consist of one to a few seeds per sample40. For example, grape seeds are
present in 56 % of samples from MBA and EBA Kültepe, but always less than
five per sample41 with Kaman Kalehöyük in the MBA having grape in 24 % of
samples and never more than two seeds present.42 The low numbers are hard
to interpret given the complex formation processes of archaeological assem-
blages, but as grape seeds are robust, easy to identify even when fragmented,
and commonly disposed of as rubbish, they have a high potential for preser-
vation and survival in the archaeological record. The most plausible explana-
tion for their preservation is that they were burnt after casual disposal into
fires after eating the fruit. While certainly rarer in archaeological samples than
cereals and seed foods, at most sites the ubiquity and abundance of grapes sug-
gest that grape eating was a widespread activity. It is plausible that grapes, pro-
cured dried and probably fresh from trade and perhaps local vineyards, were
not a daily food, but rather a sweet treat, and indeed Miller has proposed that
sweetness was the main driver behind their Bronze Age increase in popularity.43
34 De Cupere et al 2017.
35 Çizer 2015.
36 Follieri and Coccolini 1983.
37 Fairbairn 2014 and unpublished data.
38 Miller 2008.
39 Op. cit., Tables 1 and 2.
40 Miller 2008, Fairbairn in press.
41 Fairbairn 2014, Table 1.
42 Andrew Fairbairn unpublished data; Nesbitt 1993.
43 Miller 2008.
A previously unreported find from terminal EB III levels at Yassıhöyük44 of a

possible raisin (fig 2.) provides archaeological evidence for raisin production
in the central region, though distinguishing such remains from burnt, fresh
fruits is not definitive.45
The only large concentrations of grape remains in central Anatolia come
from the site of Büklükale west of Kırıkkale,46 where abundant deposits of grape
seeds in a diverse assemblage of foods were deposited with large numbers of
cups and exotic items at the end of the MBA III (fig. 3).47 The assemblage is
unusual and probably represents consumption of grapes as part of a high-sta-
tus feast, meal or other social event before the rubbish, ashes and cups from
that event, alongside other materials, was dumped in the deposit.
Other proxies for grape use and cultivation include the presence of its wood,
unrecorded in any central Anatolian Bronze Age sites, including extensively
analyzed deposits at Kaman Kalehöyük,48 Kültepe49 and Büklükale.50 Pollen is
another means of identifying cultivation, as the pollen does not travel far from
the plant. Peaks in pollen presence at Beyşehir and other Lake District sites are
occasionally seen before the Bronze Age,51 but a sustained presence of grape
pollen is not seen until the late second Millennium BC as part of the Beyşehir
occupation phase, in which much greater signs of human disturbance and veg-
etation change are seen in the fossil record.52 The earliest probable cultivation
evidence from pollen is in Lake Zeribar in Iran in the fifth millennium BC.53
Cappadocia, home to one of Turkey’s contemporary wine regions, and center
of the Assyrian trading system, has no clear physical evidence as yet for local
grape cultivation.
Together the archaeobotanical evidence suggests that, as in other regions,
grape use in Anatolia was initially confined to the natural distribution range
of grapes, but that range expanded significantly during the Early Bronze Age,
with grape use becoming ubiquitous by the Middle and Late Bronze Age even
in areas where grapes are not naturally found. It seems probable that all grapes
found in the central regions of Anatolia were from cultivated, domestic stocks
from this time, with some cultivated locally. The use of domestic stocks is con-
firmed by the presence of small, immature seeds amongst fuller, larger forms,54
and these are present by the MBA at Büklükale. It is easy, if perhaps misleading,
44 Matsumura 2014, A. Fairbairn unpublished data.

45 Margaritis and Jones 2006.
46 Matsumura 2014.
47 Fairbairn et al. forthcoming.
48 Wright et al 2015.
49 Fairbairn and Wright 2017.
50 Fairbairn et al. in press.
51 Van Zeist and Bottema 1991.
52 See Roberts et al. 2001, England et al 2008.
53 Van Zeist and Bottema 1977.
54 Kroll 1999.
to conclude that the presence of grapes indicates local cultivation. As with figs,
which also become widely available during the EBA (Fairbairn in press), but
have never been cultivable in central Anatolia, grapes and raisins could have
been largely supplied by trade for much of the Bronze Age, with cultivation
an innovation of the later second millennium in the central zone if the pol-
len evidence is reliable as an indicator of cultivation. This observation would
appear to contradict the apparent economic importance of the grape harvest
at Kanesh discussed above.
§ 3 Vessels in the material and pictorial record of

Middle Bronze Age Anatolia
The textual and botanical record of wine from Anatolia in the Middle Bronze
Age can be combined with an exceptional archaeological and pictorial record

coming from the site of Kültepe that is chronologically and societally very tight.
In effect, the houses in which the texts were found also contained vessels and
images of feasting associated with the consumption of drink in ritualized con-
texts. However, the roughly 900 Assyrians who passed in and out of Kaneš dur-
ing the thirty-year period MC 1895–1865 BC covered by the greater part of our
textual and pictorial material lived roughly a generation before the vessels and
plant material were deposited at the site. It is therefore an assumption that the
two datasets map on to one another in general terms. We can’t exclude that the
latest occupants of at least some of the houses in which textual archives were
found no longer had a direct relation to the individuals recorded in the texts.
The problematic chronological and spatial association between archives and
architecture means that the association between archaeological stratigraphy and
historical chronology is not precise enough to permit an integration of the two.55
This is regrettable, seeing as the excavations at Kültepe have provided an
astounding wealth of objects and images related to the preparation, consump-
tion, and perhaps even transport of wine. Instead, one may explore the degree
to which we can identify recurring patterns of behavior and a general “set” of
implements associated with the consumption of wine without recourse to tex-
tual evidence and focus to a particular category of pitchers to test the degree
to which ethnographic data may be applied to inform our hypotheses.
Preparations for drinking wine presumably involved sieving, mixing and
perhaps the adding of flavors. It is not clear if vessels recovered in the houses
and tombs at Kültepe were used for wine or other liquids that needed sieving or
straining, such as beer and dairy products. It is also conceivable that the same
vessels served several purposes during their lifetime. Superficial similarities
55 A detailed discussion of the chronology, demography and sample bias in the sources from
Kültepe appears on Barjamovic, Hertel and Larsen 2012, Ch. 3.
between ancient and more recent vessels used in wine drinking, such as the
shallow cup shown in (fig. 4) that looks remarkably similar to a conventional
tastevin – complete with a highly burnished inner surface to allow light reflec-
tion – are deceptive and presuppose similar conceptualizations of taste and
aestheticizing of wine. There are however certain mechanics associated with
wine drinking which suggest that particular vessels were associated with the
practice. Aside from funnels, colanders and straws (fig. 5), which were prob-
ably primarily used to prepare and serve beer, cauldrons, flat pen cups, buck-
ets (figs. 6), ladles (sometimes with a sieve) (fig. 7), and animal-headed rytha
(fig. 8) can often be specifically associated with the consumption and libation
of wine. Other obvious relations between vessel and wine are drawn by deco-
ration on the vessels themselves. In some cases, serving vessels are shaped like
grape clusters (fig. 9), or they carry stylized grape decorations (fig. 10).
This complex of vessels and paraphernalia probably related to drinking at
MBA Kültepe forms part of a larger material culture tradition that extends into
the early EBA at least. This was a period whose ceramic tradition saw the devel-
opment and widespread use of pitchers, shallow cups and distinctive spouted
jugs that reach great size and decoration in the later period.
In support of the physical evidence for wine drinking, the glyptic evidence
from Kültepe provides a rich inventory of drinking vessels and their use.
Although the glyptic material consists of several geographically and artistically
separate traditions, seals cut in the Anatolian and OA2 styles in particular can
be shown to have been produced locally at Kültepe and presumably therefore
at least partially reflect local custom in e. g. vessels, textile and iconography.56
In the Kaneš seal imagery, scenes of drinking or feasting constitute a com-
mon artistic spin on the classic presentation scene. As in the classic Mesopota-
mian rendering, such compositions all have a seated deity at their focus. But in
Anatolia, the main seated deity is often served drink (fig. 11). It is problematic
to assume that the drink served would always be wine, and in some instances,
it seems the deity is shown using a drinking set associated specifically with
beer. This includes large vases with triangular handles that seem to be used to
present the drink, and spouted pitchers (ewers) for used for pouring. The two
have been found together at Kültepe alongside large pithoi that were probably
used to store the liquid (fig. 12). In the scenes on the sealings, the common set
appears to include drinking straws, drinking cups with flaring rims, and ritual
stands with hanging textiles (fig. 13). In some cases, the spouted pitchers are
shown with a small lid (fig. 14).57
56 Alexander 1979, Lassen 2012, 2014. Other iconographic elements are demonstrably loans that
form part of the core scene appropriated from Mesopotamian traditions, cf. Larsen and Lassen
2014: 183 f.
57 During the 1998-season parts of an elaborate drinking set was found in a context dated to the
lower town level II period, cf. T. Özgüç 2003: 192–193 and Kulakoğlu and Kangal 2010: 212–
216. Whether the set was meant for wine, beer or some other liquid is not known.
In other cases, however, iconographic references make it likely that the deity
is enjoying grape wine. In one example (fig. 15) the main figure is seated under
a roof of vines and is served a liquid poured from a beak-spouted pitcher into a
flaring cup. The pitcher appears to be of the same open type as the one shown
in a slightly later Hittite ritual scene (fig. 16). Such open pitchers are common
at Kültepe. Some bear nipple decorations (fig. 17) reminiscent of the vessels
adorned with stylized grapes (fig. 10), and some have strainers built into their
spout (fig. 18), which may suggest that young wine was consumed and still
contained remains of pits, skin and stalks. Yet others have clover-leaf open-
ings and carry crenellations on their body reminiscent of metalwork (fig. 18).
The pictorial inventory mirrors the archaeological and includes serving
buckets (fig. 19) and various types of pitchers. In some cases, there is a “spill-
over” in the iconography that follows the genre since the Ur III-period, but
often the vessels appearing on seals carved in the Anatolian and OA2 substyle
clearly show local shapes.

There appears to be a pattern by which pitchers with closed spouts (“ewers,”
“teapots”) appear in scenes that also show vases with triangular handles and flar-
ing rims and protruding drinking straws (fig. 13). In contrast, slender pitchers
with open spouts (fig. 20) are used to pour liquid directly into a drinking cup
without recourse to intermediate vases and straws. Perhaps the closed spouted
pitchers (ewers) were used for both beer drinking with straws, and wine drink-
ing without straws, while the open (beaked) pitchers were used primarily or
even exclusively for wine.58 Another distinguishing feature is that compositions
occasionally show monkeys holding beaked pitchers with plants protruding
from the spout (fig. 21). No such images exist with the ewers.
Occasional vessels from Syria appear at Kültepe. These are mainly bottles or
jugs dated to the Ib period (fig. 22). Such containers may well have held wine
in modest volumes as suggested in Table 3. But the vessels may of course have
been associated with trade in other liquids as well, including olive oil or per-
fume. Future trace residue analysis may help distinguish containers used for
wine from other vessels appearing in the written and pictorial record. A certain
amount of repetition in the seals does suggests that standardized sets for serv-
ing and drinking wine existed and that a systematic analysis of trace residue
would be a worthwhile endeavor. No complete inventories of ceramic finds have
been published from the excavations at Kültepe since the 1950s, but informal
photographs taken annually of the finds of a season may reflect examples of
a “set” or “serving assemblage” of the pottery belonging to a single household,
although, in many cases, such photos, when available, presumably show the
58 A possible exception appears in the sealing found on the left edge of AKT 6, 197 (cf. Larsen
2010: 477) which shows a beak spouted pitcher and a vase with flaring rim and triangular han-
dles together. However, the composition does not place the vessels in a use context, instead
showing them alongside a number of other iconographic elements – a crouching lion, an
anthropomorphic figure, a wheel or disc and another pitcher below the lion.
combined content of several households, tombs and archaeological strata dug

during that season (fig. 23).
§ 3.1 Ethnography and wine

The pictorial evidence for drinking at Kültepe almost exclusively focuses on
divine presentation, libation and food offering, while the pottery and metal
vessels often come from funerary contexts and may present a specialized set-
ting that was ritually distinct from what is shown on the seals. This renders the
attempt to associate textual, pictorial and material evidence even more difficult.
One category of vessels in particular seems ubiquitous and characteristic
of the assemblage at Kaneš, while seemingly not appearing in the pictorial
representations. These are the common “double vessels” (fig. 24) that include
pitchers with multiple spouts and actual double cups. Perhaps related are com-
mon finds of identical pairs of stands and beakers, etc. (fig. 25).
An obvious explanation for this discrepancy would be to propose a function
for these vessels outside of the domain covered by the pictorial evidence. One
possible explanation is that they were used in the mortuary cult that does not
appear to be a recognizable topic of the seals. But the few texts that we have
listing objects from mortuary chapels do not seem to mention anything like
the double vessels.59 Seeing as the objects are not known from Mesopotamia,
they probably relate to a local Anatolian tradition. The double pitchers also do
not commonly occur in the later Hittite inventories, and they do not appear
much beyond Kültepe itself during the Middle Bronze Age. They may well be
related to a particular Kanešite tradition. Seeing as they appear to be common
in the households of both locals and foreigners, they may have held signifi-
cance for both groups.
Independent traditions for using double pitchers exist across the world
(fig. 26) and are especially common in the Americas. They are almost always
associated with ceremonies of marriage. Projecting ethnographic traditions
from across the globe onto a particular Bronze Age setting and associating it
with a specific category of objects defined by posterity is problematic. It does
however offer a falsifiable suggestion of purpose that one could pursue in par-
allel datasets in the future. Several other interpretations are possible, but the
association of double pitchers with marriage rites elsewhere could map onto the
material record from Kültepe and explain the ubiquity of double (and sometime
more) objects in the Kaneshite households and their absence from the pictorial
record. They could be ritual accessories not associated with the offerings pic-
tured on the seals and be objects specifically used during marriage ceremonies.60
59 Barjamovic and Larsen 2008 and Michel 2008.
60 Note that the detailed inventory of expenditures related to an engagement Kt 88/k 71 (cf. Dercksen
2008b) does not seem to refer to any such ritual object(s).
§ 4 Discussion
The large number of drinking vessels at Kültepe seen in both the material and
pictorial record appears to underline the social and ritual importance of drink-
ing in Anatolian Bronze Age society. Judging from the archaeological ceramic
record, the tradition may well extend back into the early centuries of the fourth
millennium. The contemporaneous ritual deposit of hundreds of drinking ves-
sels recently found at Büklükale points in the same direction.61 But it is not pos-
sible at present to tie this tradition to the consumption of wine, beer or other
specific liquids, and the evidence at hand for the scale of production and use
of wine in Anatolia in the Middle Bronze Age is contradictory.
On the one hand, the archaeobotanical and palaeoenvironmental evidence
suggests that while the fruits were present, grapes were not widely grown in the
MBA and may have been imported to central Anatolia. This accords with texts
showing that imported wine was a luxury in the MBA, being expensive (com-
parable to brandy nowadays) and mainly deriving from Syria. When grown
locally at all, it is possible that grapes in Anatolia were primarily cultivated as
a source of sugar (raisins and syrup) and not meant for fermentation.
On the other hand, traditions of viticulture extend far back into prehistory
and have been associated with people migrating across Anatolia from the Cau-
casus and bringing with them traditions of viniculture to northern Syria.62 By
the Middle Bronze Age some evidence suggests that traditions of viticulture
were long established also on the central plateau. The grape harvest at Kanesh
in Cappadocia was certainly large enough to have an agricultural season named
after it and the fruit was a cash crop. Furthermore, the frequency of pottery
found at Kültepe that was designed to hold liquids and shaped like grape clus-
ters or decorated with grapes builds a definite link between grape and fluids.
Texts from Kültepe also associate acorn and wine or grape, which again appears
to be reflected in local pottery. And the two locally carved styles of cylinder
seals commonly show ritual drink offerings or libations – although no scenes
of banqueting are found as is sometimes the case in the foreign glyptic styles
represented at Kültepe – with one case of an iconographic association between
drinking and vines.
It seems possible to argue that wine was used mainly for special occasions or
by relatively restricted social elite groups, as seemingly implied by the archaeo-
botanical and parts of the written evidence. Going against this, we identify two
distinct sets of drinking paraphernalia that can be distinguished in the local
pictorial and archaeological record of the houses in the lower town at Kültepe.
One of these sets consists of straws, wide-mouthed pitchers and flaring vases
with triangular handles and was probably meant for beer. The other uses long
61 Matsumura 2014.
62 Batiuk 2013.
slender beak-spouted pitchers and cups and is once associated with grape ico-
nography. Both sets are common on the representations, although the former
is prevalent. Their frequency and distribution at Kültepe suggest a high degree
of uniformity in usage across social and even ethnic groups of both sets. If the
association between the second set of paraphernalia and wine drinking is cor-
rect then wine would have been common to ritual and social life at Kanesh. Of
course, Kanesh may not have been representative of general life and consump-
tion practices across Anatolia, being particularly wealthy and maintaining par-
ticularly extensive interactions with the region south of the Taurus.
Archaeobotanical and palaeoenvironmental evidence comes with many cave-
ats, but may be taken as a corrective to assuming that vines were a commonly
grown on the central plateau from their initial introduction, and that wine itself
was locally produced and widely consumed. If interpreted directly, it suggests
that cultivation may not have been common beyond Anatolia’s coastal zone until
well into the second millennium, and implies that both grapes and their products,
including wine, were largely supplied by trade during the Middle Bronze Age. The
associated material culture paraphernalia would have followed it as a package into
these regions as part of the expansion of regional trade in the Early Bronze Age.
However, the textually recorded importance of the grape harvest at Kültepe

and the complex of ceramic and pictorial evidence from the private houses sug-
gests a less straightforward interpretation and accentuates probable regional
and chronological differences that do not register in the palaeoenvironmen-
tal analyses. Texts suggest that young wine could have been seasonally abun-
dant and available to supplement beer at feasts and festivals. And the creative
and sometimes witty character of the ceramic assemblage itself points to the
fact that drinking could hardly have been reserved for ritual or ceremonial
purposes and that intoxication played an important element in many social
gatherings (fig. 27).63 Future analyses of trace residues in particular may help
clarify chronological and regional shifts to confirm or reject relations between
ceramic shape and liquid. Our data currently points in conflicting directions
that can and must be reconciled.
Appendix 1: Attestation
Citations from unpublished texts are quoted courtesy of the Old Assyrian Text
Project.
karānum
KTS 2, 14 “[…] aluāru of wine.”
63 McGovern 2009, Dietler 2018, O’Connor 2015.
O3675 “I paid 1.5 shekels of silver and 5 shekels of copper for wine and
donkeys in Burullum.”
Kt c/k 399 “I paid 3 shekels of silver for wine after our accounts had been
settled in Burallum.” [According to Ismail 1991 text no. 23 from
Tell Leilan, an Assyrian (merchant) brought a jar of wine from
Burullum. The author notes that the town often occurs as a point
of origin for wine].
Kt u/k 5 “4 shekels of silver, the price for the wine.”
Kt 85/t 17 [Royal letter] “… When […] wine for […].”
Kt 89/k 367 “Regarding the 4 homers of wine from Mamma,” perhaps in
preparation for a marriage.
kerānum
ATHE 67 Broken contract referring (in a local context) to 5 sacks of barley,
4 wagonloads of firewood and wine.

BIN 4, 219 “The servants are carrying the aluāru of wine to him” (contra
Michel Innaya #55).
CCT 1, 29 “2 shekels of silver for wine in Zalpa”
KUG 41 “Ṭabāya is bringing ten jugs of wine to you.”

TMH 1.25 g “3 1/2 shekels of silver, price for the wine.”
VS 26, 127 “Ennānum also brought all the acorn that were in my chest. All this,
he brought to the slavegirl. Abātum and Dada brought the wine.”
Kt a/k 345 “They are bringing [x+]7 sila of wine and? (read: ú) one sila of Tega
rama to you […] 80 pounds of copper [that] Arbutala [… for the]
wine …”
Kt a/k 1060 “In regard to the outstanding claims and the wine … seven kūtu-
jars with wine that you left behind” [spouted vessel also known
to be used for wine from OB Alalakh (Wiseman 56)] of wine
sold for 200 minas of copper (the word kūtu is compared to an
elephant’s trunk in CT 29, 49: 23, which is an SB catalogue of
prodigies).
Kt c/k 216 “[x shekels of tin] for wine. 3 shekels of tin for 5 dulbatum and
sundries from Panaka.” Text refers to northern Syria [mentions
Ašihum], (cf. Dercksen 2015).
Kt c/k 367 “I paid 9 pounds of copper for my wine for three kukkubu-flasks.”
Kt c/k 441 “2 1/4 shekels of tin for wine (in Šunukam) … 3 shekels of tin for
wine (in Šehwa) … 3 shekels of tin for wine in Šuhru … 3 1/3 shek-
els of tin for wine (and) 1 2/3 shekels of tin, also for wine; all this
I gave in Burhum”. Probably in Northern Syria, cf. Dercksen 2015.
Kt c/k 639b “I gave 25 shekels for 8 sila of wine, 8 sila of flour.”
Kt c/k 721 “105 shekels [of tin?] for wine.”
Kt m/k 178 “Watniahšu made me drink 30 jugs of wine that the General had
brought.”
Kt n/k 1452 “The guide and Ennam-Aššur are bringing you 7 jugs of wine. You
are to dress the guide in a kusītum from Mamma or Talhat there.”
Kt t/k 1 “Seven pounds of šikku-copper for wine on the day we bought the
perdum” (in Šalatuwar).
Kt t/k 25 “Seven pounds of copper for wine on the day we bought the per-
dum” (in Šalatuwar).
Kt 75/k 25 Context unclear.
Kt 85/k 27 King of Tuhpiya to Itūr-ilī: “for the audience gift that you sent me,
our Amuna brings you two wineskins (ziqqu) as my audience gift,”
(cf. Dercksen 2007: 197).
Kt 88/k 71 Memorandum for “when my in-laws arrived”: “I paid 1 shekel less
7.5 grains (of silver) for wine … [x] shekels (of silver) for acorn and
wine.”
Kt 89/k 239 One kukkubu-flask with wine, worth 3 1/2 minas of copper. [Shape
of jar related to kukkubānu/ātu, which is a part of the animal stom-

ach. CAD s. v.: “a small container of metal, glass or clay serving as
alabastron, libation jar and drinking flask”; attested at Boğazköy
VBoT 24 i 19 and in EA 31: 35 (with perfume)] (cf. Dercksen 1996:
232).
Kt 89/k 255 “1.5 shekels of silver for oil, 1 shekel of silver for wine …” [in Hah-
hum].
Kt 91/k 382 “[x+]5 minas of copper, the price of wine [for?] the official, 31 ½
minas, [price of] wine and …”
Kt 93/k 604 “8 aluāru of wine” (perhaps Tegarama).
Kt 94/k 667 “I gave 3 ½ minas of good copper plus 1 shekel of silver to Puzur-
Amurrum son of Nimar-Ištar. He will bring me 4 aluāru-con-
tainers with fine sweet wine when he returns from Mamma. Also,
Puzur-Amurrum sealed with his own seal the kukanninu of a mid-
dātu-measure wine.”
Kt 94/k 676 “I furthermore gave 1 mina of good, native copper for an aluā-
ru-container of sweet wine from Mamma to Puzur-Amurrum son
of Nimar-Ištar. When he returns from Mamma he will bring it to me.
(This was) apart from the 4 aluāru-containers, the proceeds from
the silver and washed copper that they have received (previously).”
GEŠTIN
ICK 1, 181 “One hundred loaves of bread, one sheep, a kukku-cake, a tahšīmu-
cake, beer, wine: Ennum-Bēlum. Two hundred loaves of bread,
a kukku-cake, a tahšīmu-cake, beer, wine, one cow: Aššur-bēlī …
One hundred loaves of bread, a kukku-cake, a tahšīmu-cake, beer,
wine, a pair of laces for his shoes: Šizizi … One hundred loaves of
bread, a tahšīmu-cake, beer, wine: Hapuwalla the kumru-Priest.”
Fig. 1: Geographical distribution of wine in the texts from Kültepe. Background map from Bar-
jamovic 2011.
Fig. 2: Charred grape fruit, probably a rasin, from EBA III Yassıhöyük, showing seed within
flesh. Fruit diameter 5.3 mm. Photo A. Fairbairn.
Fig. 3: Scanning electron microscope of mineralized grape seed from MBA Büklükale (scale on
image). Photo R. Rasch and A. Fairbairn.
Fig. 4: False analogies: not a Kültepe tastevin. Image

from Kulakoğlu and Kangal 2010.
Fig. 5: Funnel, colander and a drinking straw from Kültepe. From Kulakoğlu and Kangal 2010.
Fig. 6: A reconstructed set. Bronze cauldron (ruqqum) an open cup (kāsum?) and two buck-
ets. From T. Özgüç 2003.
Fig. 7: Ladle with sieve (Kt 03/k et. 1). From Kulakoğlu and Kangal 2010.
Fig. 8: Animal rytha from Kültepe, on the left with a spout for libations – perhaps the qaqqad
nēšim discussed by Çayır 2017. From Kulakoğlu and Kangal 2010 and T. Özgüç 2003.
Fig. 9: Vessels shaped like grape clusters dating to the Middle Bronze Age (left) from Karahöyük
Konya on display in the Konya Archaeological Museum and (middle) from Kültepe. On the right
is a Hittite-period pitcher shaped like a grape cluster from the Tokat-area, now in the Türk ve
İslam Eserleri Müzesi in Istanbul.
Fig. 10: Ceramic vessels from Kül

tepe with stylized decorations of
grapes probably used for wine.
From Kulakoğlu and Kangal 2010.
Fig. 11: Anatolian spin on a Meso

potamian classic. Presentation scene
turned into a drink offering. N. Özgüç
1965 no. 27 carved in Old Anatolian
style.
Fig. 12: Beer storage at Kültepe? Room 12 of Hertel 2014: House 102. The 224 m2+ building
probably belonged to the native Anatolian Peruwa. The texts found in the house were published
by Albayrak 2005 and Günbattı 2016 with analyses in Michel 2011 and Shi 2015. In addition to
the large storage pithoi, spouted pitchers and vases with triangular handles the basement store-
room discussed in T. Özgüç 1959: 93 also contained six cultic stands like the one shown in fig.
13 that had been ‘ filled with small cups’. The pottery had all been placed on woven mats on the
floor presumably to protect them from cold and ground moisture. Image from T. Özgüç 1959.
Fig. 13: Anatolian beer drinking?

Presentation scene (from T. Özgüç
2003) showing a large vase with
triangular handles and protruding
drinking straws, a servant pour-
ing from a spouted pitcher, and the
main deity holding a flaring cup in
front of a ritual stand. For addi-
tional examples showing the drap-
ing textiles on the stand, see e. g. CS
291 and CS 1083. Ceramics from
Kulakoğlu and Kangal 2010.
Fig. 14: Anatolian beer drinking? Presentation scene showing the drink poured from a pitcher
with a spout and flaring rim. Image of CCT 6, 63 (envelope of CCT 5, 49d). Vessel from Kulak
oğlu and Kangal 2010.
Fig. 15: Serving wine from beak spouted pitcher in front of ritual stand under a shade of vines.
Drawing of sealing on Kt n/k 31, cf. N. Özgüç 1968 pl. XVId and discussion in N. Özgüç 1996.
Fig. 16: Liquid served in front of ritual stand on the Old Hittite vase from Inandık and a similar
beak spouted pitcher from the same site and of comparable date. From T. Özgüç 1988. Cf. also
T. Özgüç 2002, Pilavci 2017, Kohel 2018, Weeden 2018.
Fig 17. Beak spouted pitchers from Kültepe. The nipple decorations are similar to those found
in fig. 10 above and may suggest stylized grapes as further indication of their use. From Kulak
Fig. 18: Pitcher with strainer and nipple decoration, and pitcher with a flaring rim with cren-
ellations that appears to emulate a metal prototype. Metal objects at Kültepe are mostly found
in mortuary contexts but are well-attested in Old Assyrian inventory records. From Kulakoğlu
and Kangal 2010.
Fig. 19: Serving bucket on CS 429 (seal of Agua, Šu-Su’en or Enema) carved in Anatolian style,
and bronze bucket from Kültepe. From Kulakoğlu and Kangal 2010.
Fig. 20: Pitchers from Kültepe, real and depicted. Anatolian-style sealings (upper left) T304
(N. Özgüç 1965 no. 29) on ICK 1, 30a and Kt j/k 2; (upper right) N. Özgüç 1965 no. 71 (CS
927) on AKT 10, 9 and 11 of Puzur-Ištar; (middle left) detail from T303 (T. and N. Özgüç 1953
no. 668) on Kt b/k 155, ICK 1, 21a and ICK 1, 26a; (middle right) N. Özgüç 1965 no. 73 on Kt
c/k 841; (lower left) CS 199 belonging to Aššur-taklāku s. Ali-ahum. Pitchers from Kulakoğlu
and Kangal 2010.
Fig. 21: Anatolian-style sealings showing monkeys holding beak spouted pitchers with protrud-
ing plants (left) N. Özgüç 1965 no. 60 and (right) CS 485.
Fig. 22: Probable imports. A jug and a flask – perhaps a karpum and/or an aluārum? From
Kulakoğlu and Kangal 2010. The volume of the containers shown here is unknown. Analyses
conducted on similar flasks from their area of production in Syria suggest that these were in
fact used for wine, cf. Gates 1988: 71–73; Einwag 1998: 103–107; Einwag 2002; Otto 2006: 96,
278–279; Einwag and Otto 2018: 157.
Fig. 23: Seasonal photos from the Kültepe excavations: (above) from T. Özgüç 2003 year
unknown; (below) private photo showing the finds of the 2000-season.
Fig. 24: Double take. The common occurrence of double vessels at Kültepe. Selection from Kulak
Fig. 25: Paired vessels from Kültepe. From Kulakoğlu and Kangal 2010.
Fig. 26: Binary traditions. Wedding pitchers from across the globe. Most of them are double.
Open source images.
Fig. 27: Fun feasting. Explorations in clay at Kültepe. From Kulakoğlu and Kangal 2010.
Bibliography
The article uses conventional abbreviations for Assyrian texts following Michel 2003 and the
Chicago Assyrian Dictionary vol. 1 (A). The abbreviations for sealings are “T” for Teissier 1994 and
“CS” for consecutively numbered impressions in N. Özgüç and Ö. Tunca 2001 and N. Özgüç 2006.
Albayrak, İ. 2005. Fünf Urkunden aus dem Archiv von Peruwa, Sohn von Šuppibra, Jaarbericht
“Ex Oriente Lux” 39: 95–106.
Alexander, R. L. 1979. Native group cylinder seal engravers of Karum Kanish level II, Belleten 43:
573–618.
Barjamovic, G. 2011. A Historical Geography of Anatolia in the Old Assyrian Colony Period, Copen-
hagen.
Barjamovic, G. 2014. The Size of Kanesh and the Demography of Early Middle Bronze Age Anatolia,
in Current Research in Kültepe/Kanesh: An Interdisciplinary and Integrative Approach to Trade
Networks, Internationalism, and Identity during the Middle Bronze Age, ed. L. Atici, F. Kulak
oğlu, G. Barjamovic and A. Fairbairn, Boston, MA, 55–68.
Barjamovic, G. 2015. Contextualizing Tradition: Magic, Literacy and Domestic Life in Old Assyrian
Kanesh, in Texts and Contexts: The Circulation of Cuneiform Texts in Social Space, ed. P. Del-
nero and J. Lauinger, Boston, 48–86.
Barjamovic G., T. Hertel and M. T. Larsen 2012. Ups and Downs at Kanesh: Chronology, History
and Society in the Old Assyrian Period, Leiden.
Barjamovic, G. and M. T. Larsen 2008. An Old Assyrian Incantation against the Evil Eye, Altori-
entalische Forschungen 35: 144–155.
Batiuk, S. 2013. The Fruits of Migration: Understanding the ‘longue dureé’ and the Socio-eco-
nomic Relations of the Early Transcaucasian Culture, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
32: 449–477.
Çayır, M. 2017. The 1997 Kültepe Texts: The Archives of Alaku and Ennam-Anum and His Son
Aššur-Malik, in Proceedings of the Second Kültepe International Meeting, ed. F. Kulakoğlu and
G. Barjamovic, Turnhout, 3–7.
Çeçen, S. and K. Hecker 1995. ‘ina mātika eblum. Zu einem neuen Text zum Wegerecht,’ in Fest-
schrift für W. von Soden zum 85. Geburtstag am. 19. Juni 1993, ed. M. Dietrich and O. Loretz,
Münster, 31–41.
Çizer, Ö. 2015. Archaeobotanical Investigations of Plant Cultivation and Husbandry Practices at the
Early Bronze Age Settlement Küllüoba in West-Central Turkey: Considerations on Environment,
Climate and Economy. Oxford.
De Cupere, B., D. Frémondeau, E. Kaptijn, E. Marinova, J. Poblome, R. Vandam and W. Van Neer
2017. Subsistence economy and land use strategies in the Burdur province (SW Anatolia) from
prehistory to the Byzantine period, Quaternary International 436: 4–17.
Dercksen, J. G. 1996. The Old Assyrian Copper Trade in Anatolia, Istanbul.
Dercksen, J. G. 2004. Some Elements of Old Anatolian Society in Kanis, in Assyria and Beyond.
Studies Presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen, ed. J. G. Dercksen, Leiden, 137–178.
Dercksen, J. G. Die altassyrischen Handelsabgaben in Nordmesopotamien und Anatolien im
19.–18. Jh. v. Chr. in Verträgen und Praxis, in Geschenke und Steuern, Zölle und Tribute: antike
Abgabenformen in Anspruch und Wirklichkeit, ed. H. Klinkott, S. Kubisch and R. Müller-Woller-
mann, Lieden, 187–211.
Dercksen, J. G. 2008a. Observations on Land Use and Agriculture in Kanes, in Old Assyrian Stud-
ies in Memory of Paul Garelli, ed. C. Michel, Leiden, 139–157.
Dercksen, J. G. 2008b. Subsistence, Surplus and the Market for Grain and Meat at Ancient Kanesh,
Altorientalische Forschungen 35/1: 86–102.
Dercksen, J. G. 2015. Six Texts with New and Rare Toponyms from the House of Ali-ahum (Kt c/k),
in Cahit Günbattı'ya Armağan. Studies in Honour of Cahit Günbattı, ed. I. Albayrak, H. Erol,
M. Çayır, Ankara, 49–58.
Dietler, M. 2018. Alcohol as Liquid Material Culture: Feasting in Comparative Perspective, in Ani-
mal-Shaped Vessels from the Ancient World: Feasting With Gods, Heroes and Kings, ed. S. Ebbing
haus, Cambridge, MA, 25–31.
Durand, J.-M. 1989. kirrum = ÁBxŠÀ (kír), N.A.B.U. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utili-
taires 1989/2, No. 3.
Einwag, B. 1998. Die Keramik aus dem Bereich des Palastes A in Tall Bi’a/Tuttul und das Problem
der frühen Mittleren Bronzezeit, München and Wien.
Einwag, B. 2002. Early Second Millennium Pottery of the Euphrates Region, in From Relative Chro-
nology to Absolute Chronology: The Second Millennium BC in Syria-Palestine, ed. P. Matthiae,
F. Pinnock, L. Nigro and L. Peyronel, Rome, 195–208.
Einwag, B. and A. Otto. 2018. The Late Bronze Age at Tall Bazi: The Evidence of the Pottery and
the Challenges of Radiocarbon Dating, in From Pottery to Chronology: The Middle Euphrates
Region in Late Bronze Age Syria. Proceedings of the International Workshop in Mainz (Germany),
May 5–7, 2012, ed. A. Otto, Gladbeck, 149–176.
England, A., W. J. Eastwood, C. N. Roberts, R. Turner and J. F. Haldon 2008. Historical Landscape
Change in Cappadocia (Central Turkey): a Palaeoecological Investigation of Annually Lami-
nated Sediments from Nar Lake, The Holocene 18: 1229–1245.
Erol, H. 2007. Eski Asurca metinlerde meslek adları ve unvanlarla geçen şahıs isimleri, MA thesis,
Ankara University.
Fairbairn A. in press. Agriculture in the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age of Asia Minor, in A Com-
panion to Ancient Agriculture, ed. T. Howe and D. Hollander, London.
Fairbairn, A. 2014. Archaeobotanical Investigations of Plant Consumption and Trade at Middle
Bronze Age Kültepe/Kanesh, in Current Research in Kültepe/Kanesh: An Interdisciplinary and
Integrative Approach to Trade Networks, Internationalism, and Identity during the Middle Bronze
Age, ed. L. Atici, F. Kulakoğlu, G. Barjamovic and A. Fairbairn, Boston MA, 175–192.
Fairbairn A. and N. Wright 2017. Grinding, Burning and Trading at Kültepe: Archaeobotanical
Evidence for Economic Differences Between Settlements in Anatolia’s Middle Bronze Age, in
Proceedings of the Second Kültepe International Meeting, ed. F. Kulakoğlu and G. Barjamovic,
Turnhout, 9–27.
Fairbairn, A. S., N. J. Wright, M. Weeden, G. Barjamovic, K. Matsumura and R. Rasch, in press.
Ceremonial plant consumption at Middle Bronze Age Büklükale, Kırıkkale Province, central
Turkey, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany.
Follieri, M. and G. B. L. Coccolini 1983. Palaeoethnobotanical Study of the VI A and VI B Periods
of Arslantepe (Malatya, Turkey). Preliminary Report in Perspectives on Protourbanization in
Eastern Anatolia: Arslantepe (Malatya). An Interim Report on 1975–1983 Campaigns, Origini.
Rivista di Prehistoria e Protostoria delle Civiltà Antiche 12: 599–617.
Garelli, P. 1963. Les Assyriens en Cappadoce, Paris.
Garnier, N. and S. M. Valamoti 2016. Prehistoric Wine-making at Dikili Tash (Northern Greece):
Integrating residue analysis and archaeobotany, Journal of Archaeological Science 74: 195–206.
Gates, M.-H. 1988. Dialogues Between Ancient Near Eastern Texts and the Archaeological
Record: Test Cases from from Bronze Age Syria, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 270: 63–91.
Günbattı, C. 2016. Ankara Kültepe Tabletleri 10. Anadolu tüccarlar Šarabunuwa ve Peruwa’nin
arşivleri, Ankara.
Hertel, T. K. 2014. The Lower Town at Kültepe/Kanesh: The Urban Layout and the Population, in
Current Research in Kültepe/Kanesh: An Interdisciplinary and Integrative Approach to Trade Net-
works, Internationalism, and Identity during the Middle Bronze Age, ed. L. Atici, F. Kulakoğlu,
G. Barjamovic and A. Fairbairn, Bristol CT, 25–54.
Hoffner, H. A. 1974. Alimenta Hethaeorum, New Haven.
Ismail, F. 1991. Altbabylonische Wirtschaftsurkunden aus Tall Leilan (Syrien), PhD thesis, Eber-
hard-Karls-Universität Tübingen.
Koehl, R. B. 2018. From the Near East to the Aegean, from Neolithic Times to the End of the Bronze
Age, in Animal-Shaped Vessels from the Ancient World: Feasting With Gods, Heroes and Kings,
ed. S. Ebbinghaus, Cambridge, MA, 45–55, 58–67, 70–77, 80–85.
Kroll, H. 1999. Vor- und frühgeschichtliche Weinreben – wild oder angebaut?, Trierer Zeitschrift
62: 151–153.
Kulakoğlu, F. and S. Kangal 2010. Anatolia’s Prologue, Kultepe Kanesh Karum, Assyrians in Istan-
bul, Kayseri.
Landsberger, B. 1949. Jahreszeiten im Sumerisch-Akkadischen, Journal of Near Eastern Studies
8/3: 248–272.
Larsen, M. T. 2010. Ankara Kültepe Tabletleri 6a. The Archive of the Šalim-Aššur Family. Vol. 1: The
First Two Generations, Ankara.
Larsen, M. T. 2015. Ancient Kanesh: A Merchant Colony in Bronze Age Anatolia, Cambridge.
Larsen, M. T. and A. W. Lassen 2014. Cultural Exchange at Kültepe, in Extraction and Control, ed.
M. Kozuh, Chicago, 171–188.
Lassen, A. W. 2010. The Trade in Wool in Old Assyrian Anatolia, Jaarbericht “Ex Oriente Lux”
42: 159–179.
Lassen, A. W. 2012. Glyptic Encounters: A Stylistic and Prosopographical Study of Seals in the Old
Assyrian Period. Chronology, Ownership and Identity, PhD thesis, University of Copenhagen.
Lassen, A. W. 2014. The Old Assyrian Glyptic Style: An Investigation of a Seal Style, Its Owners,
and Place of Production, in Current Research in Kültepe/Kanesh: An Interdisciplinary and Inte-
grative Approach to Trade Networks, Internationalism, and Identity during the Middle Bronze
Age, ed. L. Atici, F. Kulakoğlu, G. Barjamovic and A. Fairbanks, Boston MA, 107–121.
Margaritis, E. and M. Jones 2006. Beyond Cereals: Crop Processing and Vitis vinifera L. Ethnog-
raphy, Experiment and Charred Grape Remains from Hellenistic Greece, Journal of Archaeo-
logical Science 33: 784–805.
Matsumura K. 2014. Büklükale kazısı 2013, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 36: 671–684.
Mason, S. and M. Nesbitt 2009. Acorns as Food in Southeast Turkey: Implications for Prehistoric
Subsistence in Southwest Asia, in From Foragers to Farmers: Papers in Honour of Gordon C.
Hillman, ed. A. Fairbairn and E. Weiss, Oxford, 71–85.
McGovern, P. 2009. Uncorking the Past: The Human Quest for Alcoholic Beverages, Berkeley.
McGovern, P. E., D. L. Glusker and L. J. Exner 1996. Neolithic Resinated Wine, Nature 381: 480–481.
McGovern, P. E., M. Jalabadze, S. Batiuk, M. P. Callahan, K. E. Smith, G. R. Hall, E. Kvavadze, D.
Maghradze, N. Rusishvili, L. Bouby, O. Failla, G. Cola, L. Mariani, E. Boaretto, R. Bacilieri, P.
This, N. Wales and D. Lordkipanidze 2017. Early Neolithic Wine of Georgia in the South Cau-
casus, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 114/48.
E10309–E10318, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1714728114.
Michel, C. 1996. Le commerce dans les textes de Mari, in Amurru 1. Mari, Ebla et les Hourrites,
dix ans de travaux., ed. J.-M. Durand, Paris, 385–426.
Michel, C. 1997. À table avec les marchands paléo-assyriens, in Assyrien im Wandel der Zeiten, ed.
H. Waetzoldt and H. Hauptmann, Heidelberg, 95–113.
Michel, C. 2003. Old Assyrian Bibliography of Cuneiform Texts, Bullae, Seals and the Results of the
Excavations at Aššur, Kültepe/Kaniš, Acemhöyük, Alişar and Boğazköy, Leiden.
Michel, C. 2008. Les Assyriens et les esprits de leurs morts, in Old Assyrian Studies in Memory of
Paul Garelli, ed. C. Michel, Leiden, 181–197.
Michel, C. 2009. ‘Dis-moi ce que tu bois…’ Boissons et buveurs en haute Mésopotamie et Ana-
tolie au début du IIe millénaire av. J.-C., in Et il y eut un esprit dans l’Homme. Jean Bottéro et la
Mésopotamie, ed. X. Faivre, B. Lion and C. Michel, Paris, 197–220.
Michel, C. 2011. The Private Archives from Kaniš Belonging to Anatolians, Altorientalische
Forschungen 38/1: 94–115.
Miller, N. 2008. Sweeter than Wine? The Use of the Grape in Early Western Asia, Antiquity 82/318:
937–946.
Nesbitt, M. 1993. Ancient Crop Husbandry at Kaman Kalehoyuk: 1991 Archaeobotanical Report,
Bulletin of the Middle East Culture Centre in Japan 7: 75–97.
O’Connor, K. The Never-Ending Feast: The Anthropology and Archaeology of Feasting, London;
New York.
Otto, A. 2006. Alltag und Gesellschaft zur Spätbronzezeit: Eine Fallstudie aus Tall Bazi (Syrien),
Turnhout.
Özgüç N. 1965. The Anatolian Group of Cylinder Seal Impressions from Kültepe, Ankara.
Özgüç, N. 1968. Seals and Impressions of Level Ib from Karum Kanish, Ankara.
Özgüç, N. 1996. Seal Impressions on Kültepe Documents Notarized by Native Rulers, in Collec
tanea Orientalia: Histoire, arts de l’espace et industrie de la terre: Etudes offertes en hommage à
Agnès Spycket, ed. H. Gasche and B. Hrouda, Neuchâtel and Paris, 267–278.
Özgüç N. 2006. Kültepe-Kaniš/Neša: Seal Impressions on the Clay Envelopes from the Archives of the
Native Peruwa and Assyrian trader Uṣur-ša-Ištar son of Aššur-imittī, Ankara.
Özgüç. T. 1959. Kültepe-Kaniş. New Researches at the Center of Assyrian Trade Colonies, Ankara.
Özgüç. T. 1988. İnandıktepe. An Important Cult Center in the Old Hittite Period, Ankara.
Özgüç, T. 2002. Opfer und Libation, in Die Hethiter und ihr Reich: Das Volk der 1000 Götter, ed.
H. Willinghöfer and U. Hasekamp, Stuttgart, 122–127.
Özgüç. T. 2003. Kültepe-Kaniš/Neša. The earliest international trade center and the oldest capital
city of the Hittites, Tokyo.
Özgüç T. and N. Özgüç 1953. Kültepe Kazısı Raporu. 1949. Ausgrabungen in Kültepe. Bericht über
die im Auftrage der Türkischen Historischen Gesellschaft, 1949 durchgeführten Ausgrabungen,
Ankara.
Özgüç N. and Ö. Tunca 2001. Kültepe-Kaniš. Sealed and Inscribed Clay Bullae, Ankara.
Pilavci, T. 2017. Drinking a God and Sacrificing a Drink: Agency of the Hittite Libation Vessels.
Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Columbia University.
Roberts, N., J. M. Reed, M. J. Leng, C. Kuzucuoğlu, M. Fontugne, J. Bertaux, H. Woldring, S. Bot-
tema, S. Black, E. Hunt and M. Karabiyikoğlu 2001. The Tempo of Holocene Climatic Change
in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: New High-resolution Crater-lake Sediment Data from
Central Turkey, The Holocene 11/6: 721–736.
Shi, X. 2015. Village Life in Ancient Anatolia: the case of Talwahšušara, Proceedings of the Kültepe
International Meeting 1, ed. F. Kulakoğlu and C. Michel, Turnhout, 147–154.
Teissier B. 1994. Sealing and Seals on Texts from Kültepe Kārum Level 2, Leiden.
Van Zeist, W. and S. Bottema 1991. Late Quaternary Vegetation of the Near East, Wiesbaden.
Veenhof, K. R. 2008. Mesopotamia: The Old Assyrian Period, in Annährungen 5. Mesopotamia.
The Old Assyrian Period, ed. M. Wäfler, Fribourg and Göttingen, 13–264.
Weeden, M. 2018. God-Drinking in Hittite Texts, in Animal-Shaped Vessels from the Ancient World:
Feasting With Gods, Heroes and Kings, ed. S. Ebbinghaus, Cambridge, MA, 68–69.
Wright, N. J., S. A. Fairbairn, J. T. Faith and K. Matsumura 2015. Woodland Modification in Bronze
and Iron Age Central Anatolia: An Anthracological Signature for the Hittite State?, Journal of
Archaeological Science 55: 219–230.
Yakar, J. 2000. Ethnoarchaeology of Anatolia: Rural Socio-Economy in the Bronze and Iron Ages,
Tel Aviv.
Zohary, D., M. Hopf and E. Weiss 2012. Domestication of Plants in the Old World: The origin and
spread of domesticated plants in Southwest Asia, Europe, and the Mediterranean Basin, Oxford.

Wdor 2018 48 2 249

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

Wdor 2018 48 2 249

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anatolian Wine in the Middle Bronze Age

Gojko Barjamovic and Andrew Fairbairn

§ 1 The textual record

ture of wine in contemporary and later texts in other corpora. Production is

Table 1: Geographical origin of wine in the Old Assyrian texts

2 Discussed in Miller 2008 and § 2 below.

Table 2: Containers for wine (and perhaps beer) at Kültepe

4 Barjamovic 2011: 200.

Table 3: Quantities of wine mentioned in the texts from Kültepe

Kt n/k 1452 Seven jugs (kà-ar-pát ke-ra-na-am) of wine

A comparison between containers and references to quantity (Table 3) suggests

Table 4: Price of wine in the Old Assyrian texts

§ 1.1 Textual references to wine in the agricultural economy

10 Dercksen 2008a, 2008b, Shi 2015.

tional role of agriculture is instead reflected through dozens of memoranda

terns of seasonality and the emphasis on certain crops.16

References to agricultural activities are therefore mostly indirect and occur

19 Veenhof 2008: 238–246.

§ 1.2 Textual references to wine in feast and ritual

malized consumption of beer.21 When an Assyrian trader bought an animal,

20 Op. cit., p. 243.

(DÚG) of wine that the General had brought.”

Wine is a difficult substance to track down in the material record as it is not

An important point to consider in the long term record of grape consump-

Table 6: Chronological and Geographical distribution of archaeobotanical remains of grapes in

31 Miller 2008, Margaritis and Jones 2006.

Archaeological grape assemblages in Anatolia, and indeed across the region,

A previously unreported find from terminal EB III levels at Yassıhöyük44 of a

44 Matsumura 2014, A. Fairbairn unpublished data.

§ 3 Vessels in the material and pictorial record of

Age can be combined with an exceptional archaeological and pictorial record

clearly show local shapes.

combined content of several households, tombs and archaeological strata dug

§ 3.1 Ethnography and wine

However, the textually recorded importance of the grape harvest at Kültepe

63 McGovern 2009, Dietler 2018, O’Connor 2015.

4 wagonloads of firewood and wine.

KUG 41 “Ṭabāya is bringing ten jugs of wine to you.”

of jar related to kukkubānu/ātu, which is a part of the animal stom-

Fig. 4: False analogies: not a Kültepe tastevin. Image

Fig. 10: Ceramic vessels from Kül­

Fig. 11: Anatolian spin on a Meso­

Fig. 13: Anatolian beer drinking?

You might also like

§ 3 Vessels in the material and pictorial record of

Fig. 10: Ceramic vessels from Kül

Fig. 11: Anatolian spin on a Meso