The Winery in Context: The Workshop Complex at Ambarçay, Diyarbakır (SE Turkey)

1 Introduction

The literature on agriculture, specifically wine herein, is expanding. Grape and olive (of course alongside products like grain and perhaps garum) were the two significant defining products of the Mediterranean basin. Several civilizations engaged in the production of wine, which has been subject to numerous activities, from drinking to entertainment, sacramental, medical and sanitary purposes.

Paleobotanical research has shown that wild grape (vitis) was cultivated in the Neolithic sites of the Fertile Crescent where plenty of grape seeds were uncovered (McGovern, 2003, pp. 40–78, 167–200). Biochemical analysis has also revealed outstanding records as evidenced through the residues detected inside the ceramics, particularly a jar dating 8,000 bp in the Caucasian region (McGovern et al., 2017).^[1] The development and proliferation of enology, albeit a lot of questions on the mechanisms of domestication of grape fruit and the first cultivars of vitis vinifera,^[2] can be owed to the Caucasian, Mediterranean and Iran Plateau cultures (Terral et al., 2010, pp. 444–454). Wine was produced in the Levant, stretching from the Negev Desert to the banks of the Jordan River. Amongst the first known notable transporters throughout the Mediterranean were the Phoenicians. Viticulture was introduced far across the Iberian Peninsula later than the ninth century BC; however, no species seems to have been exploited before the Phoenician colonists (Cervantes, 2020, p. 73). It was understood through a number of means, especially with the help of archeological evidence (e.g. diagnosed with Type R-1 wine amphora from Cadiz, Barcelona, etc., dating back to the earlier times, around eighth to seventh centuries; (Cervantes, 2020, p. 73)) that this part of the western Mediterranean was linked to wine production.

The paramount economic output of viticulture is related to dozens of vine tree types. The value attributed to wine and its expression through the ancient imagery alongside the vast inventory of iconic items since the Assyrian Colony Period come out within the framework of shaping commercial life. In the cuneiform tablets that make mention of the debt securities or the drawn up contracts, the maturity days, for example, were determined according to the vintage dates (Öz, 2014, p. 28). Wine is encountered in a variety of contexts, from the Hittite documents and reliefs (where i.e. Warpalawas was offered by Tarhuntas the bunch of grape fruits in İvriz, eighth century BC) (Akurgal, 1997, pp. 200, 231) to the Urartian^[3] and Assyrian inscriptions,^[4] from the results obtained from Phrygian ethnobotanical studies to the production process of the food (sometimes as important as grain) and beverages in the Hellenistic and Roman period economies.

The volume and patterns of tradable wine, as part of the ancient civilizations’ diet changed according to region and time, agreeing that it archaeologically became more perceptible, hence precious during the Roman and Byzantine era. The pressing technology was limited before the late Hellenistic and Roman era (Foxhall, 2007, p. 177). The Romans had a pivotal role in the proliferation of the culture of wine over a wider geography, from the Levant to the Black Sea, from Alexandria to Rome, precisely connected with the maritime traffic. The wine trade was on the rise in the second to first centuries BC and the pace of such dynamism must have lasted (according to the relative value of some geographies as reflected in renewed taxation arrangements, amphora production, e.g. Delos versus Rhodes, cf. Lund, 1999; Rauh, 1999)^[5] until the end of the Late Antiquity. The private investment in the olive presses and operations with increasing numbers and dimensions expanded in the Roman Africa as well. (Mattingly & Hitchner, 1995, pp. 195–204). We are, on the one hand, informed of Hadrian’s (second century) orders to encourage cultivation of the waste/unused virgin lands for olive and vine as well as grain (FIRA I.102). The opposite decisions had to be taken when Emperor Domitian (second century), who had to declare the banning of viniculture due to contractions in grain, was in rule (Suet. Dom.7.2,14.2).

The Hellenistic and Roman period viticulture practices are almost certain. For example, the wines of Cilicia region were excessively produced in the plain zone (Cilicia Pedias), extensively around Soli and Tarsus where productivity activities have also been reported from the urbanized centers of Rough Cilicia (Aydınoğlu & Alkaç, 2008, passim). In addition to the highly demanded affordable Knidos wine, high-quality Thasos and Chios wines and standard-quality Rhodian products (which were mainly due to the plantations on the mainland, especially the Rhodian Peraia matching modern Bozburun (Oğuz-Kırca & Demirciler, 2015, pp. 51–76; Tuna & Empereur, 1989)^[6] that were in circulation in the Mediterranean were amongst the most preferred items in the ancient world.

Over the course of the late Roman and early Byzantine (around mid-fourth century AD) period, we are well informed of viticulture, also accompanied by the development and principles of winemaking technology in Asia Minor and the Western and Eastern Mediterranean – principally centered along or near the coastal strip (Vitruvius, 1960, 1.4.2; 6.6.2; Plinius, 1949–1954, 14.1–25). However, down to the ruling era of the Eastern Roman Empire, the monasteries and churches became the main production centers. As we understand, despite an oenophilic lifestyle, ceremonies, along with the accompaniment of the stereotypical figures of paganism as, e.g. devoted to Bacchus, wine libations, symposia, etc., were less performed than before. In any case, wine was used just as excessively in everyday life and church rituals.

When considered from the point of viticulture activities in the south and east and depending on the economic value of the product, we see that the famous wine ascribed by Strabo to Melitene [where XIIth Legio: Fulminata was based during second to fourth centuries AD (Strabo 12.2.1.535)] is a case in point, in stressing the no less-qualified products in the southeastern part of Asia Minor. A precious source is Anabasis in which Xenophon makes a specific mention of the floodplains of Tigris, as also a land to the Kardukhs. When traced back to the Urartian culture (as he narrates), wine storage was made in the cisterns plastered/cemented with mud, in the eastern cities of the Tigris. Supplementary information relates to its carriage by the natives of the city of Koenes (Caenae/Senn), located to the “left side of the river”, and probably situated in the Urartian territories (Xenophon, Anabasis. 2.4; 4.2).

The Tigris, as it is today, had a very valuable place as the cradle of various cultures and different livelihoods, including irrigation/non-irrigation-based activities throughout history. In the next section, an excavation area showing different distribution patterns in a common geography around the Ambarçay flood plain, which is one of the branches of the Tigris, is briefly mentioned.

2 Background and Layout of Ambarçay

Tigris, which gave its name to the ancient city Tigranokerta (Kritoboulos, 2015, 4.1.7; 4.3.8; 4.4.5; 4.6.1–2) passing through its east, feeds Mesopotamia with the Euphrates. Ambar Çayı/Ambarçay Stream is one of the waterways^[7] that joins the Tigris from the north. In the year 2012–2013, State Hydraulic Works (DSİ) initiated the Ambar Dam Project, along with a handful of others, for the irrigation of the agricultural fields and incrementation in agricultural efficiency, on the left and right banks of the Ambarçay Stream. Upon that, rescue excavations (for the completion of a series of studies from prehistoric to Roman Asia) were launched around three prehistoric mounds in Ambar Village, which lies within 5 km distance to Kocaköy Sub-Province of Diyarbakır (Figure 1) as well as the discovery of a Roman necropolis, a rock dwelling lying 1 km northeast (overlooking the Ambarçay Stream) and a mill, in the same village (Coşkun, 2020, pp. 587–604).

Figure 1

Location of Ambarçay village and view from the stream (Source: Ambarçay Salvage Excavation Archive).

The excavations (2019–2020) commenced in the Roman necropolis area resulted with the chanceful discovery of a group of workshops in the south and western sectors, appearing with successive pressing and production units as almost alike, seemingly for wine and side products of grape.

Preliminary knowledge about the historical trajectory around Ambarçay was gathered during the excavations carried out at three mounds. The first settlement started in PPNB at Gre Fılla and intensified around Kendale Hecala to the end of the Neolithic period. The site seems to have pursued occupational activity with four levels of medieval architecture and vessels, too, up on the Neolithic levels. The mounds and vicinity are convenient for doing agriculture over a valuable area of ca. 2 km radius (Ökse, 2020, pp. 4–8, 11–12). Matching the Upper Mesopotamia in SE of Turkey and fed by Ambarçay Stream in close proximity, our site in question lies at a fair distance to the prehistoric mound, which is associable to this cultivable environment. Regarding the distribution of viticulture in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire and the Byzantine State, we lack information relating to the presence of a specific site like Ambarçay. Nonetheless, long after the Urartian texts, the Classical writers give an early description of a larger area around the Tigris (Procopius, 1914, 1.11.22–28; 17.5–12, 18–24; 19.15–23; Ptolemaios, 1932, V.14; Cassius Dio, 1914–1927, 68.17.1, 26.1–2, 28). Following the rule and administration of the Seleucids, the region changed hands amongst the Armenian, Roman and Parthian kingdoms between 85 BC and 231 AD, and the Romans and Sassanids (between 231 and 298) and, witnessed the wars and struggles in Anatolia and Iran, to the end of the Byzantine period. (Akşit, 1970, pp. 311–313). There is almost no doubt that Ambarçay lived and survived witnessing the mentioned powers of the period (regardless of how long entirely).

Looking closer to the site in question, a series of nine rock hewn pressing installations forming a complex are furnished in between a quarry and two springs spouting from the bedrock below. This area directly faces the core site, the necropolis where excavations intensified in the rock-cut tombs. The installations are situated in the south and outer western parts of the funerary site. This complex is expected to be bigger in size, in regard to the unexcavated area down the main road. Already, three other publicly reported units are now under the highway and a nearby village house. The order of pressing installations (hereinafter as the “workshop” for each individual winery setup) follows the S–N (WS 1–6) and N–S (7–9), falling into the grids EZ38–FF45 (Figure 2). The coding (under the generic appellation AK-20) of the trenches was made according to the timely order of field work. Predominated by the limestone environment and suitable (slightly sloping hard ground) topography rising above the present elevation of the modern village and, adjacent to the quarry also discovered recently, the workshops are scattered over an area of ca. 5 decares (67 m × 79 m), at an average elevation of 960 m where slope values measure 4–5% and elevation difference is 3.60 m.

Figure 2

Drone image of the Ambarçay Complex (Ambarçay Salvage Excavation Archive).

3 General Characterization of the Workshop

In the current outlook, the complex is adequately preserved with all the in situ segments, though may slightly be disturbed in part, in the internal organization. Some normal depressions appear in the floors. The structure of each workshop shows parallels in their operation principle. As one of the two mainlines of the installations, the treading floors form the first segment for initial fermentation while the collecting pools/vats act as the basic enclosures and/or purifying space for settling and stilling the product before storage and/or direct shipment.

Each individual workshop has an oblong plan, oriented to north–south (Figures 3 and 4). The treading floors are located in the north and collecting pools in the south, in almost all of them. This kind of positioning can be explained by the nature of the product. Each segment, by supervising the sloping ground (a technique used in the construction of a typical wine press), was carved into the bedrock, directly compatible with the topographical structure. The entire ground slopes relative to the collecting pool. The depth of the short side walls of the treading floor is less while the depth increases toward the pool (Figure 5). The absolute practical area of each workshop measures 20–23 m², signaling a sort of standardization in the entire complex.

Figure 3

1/50 plan of WS1-oriented N–S and 3D drawing (Ambarçay Salvage Excavation Archive).

Figure 4

Samples showing orientation in North-South Direction (Ambarçay Salvage Excavation Archive)

Figure 5

1/50 Scale D-D’ Section of WS1 (Ambarçay Salvage Excavation Archive).

The average dimension of the nearly square form treading floors and the collecting pools vary between 16 and 20 and 16 and 261 m², respectively. Even though each single workshop is the constituent of the main body of evidence, the complex by itself, they need not, in our opinion, be described one by one in detail, so as not to hamper a qualitative reasoning or miss the mark that requires evaluation in a cautious integrity. Nevertheless, the attributes of each (which may be, when appropriate, referred in the course of the text) are tabulated below.

As we assume, various products of grape such as vinegar, fruit pulp and grape must/juice were made. Presumably, the grapes were trodden first by bare foot and then were conducted to the collecting pools via the midmost segment, elliptical canals (whose diameter change between 11 and 23 cm) (Figure 6, below), if not pressed mechanically (reminding the case of solea et canalis, Columella, 1941, 1955, 1977, de Re Rustica, 12.52.6) in a basket or sack. The depth of the treading basins is variable (Table 1). A socket to support a mechanical device element like a fulcrum ^[8] and pressing handle (prelum ^[9]), which are expected to be in the highest part of these basins, do not exist. Disturbance is too high in the bedrock to offer a clear interpretation.

Figure 6

Bench over treading floor (Top); samples of elliptical canals (Ambarçay Salvage Excavation Archive).

Amidst the two chambers and mostly toward their southeastern and southwestern corners pits were carved in accordance with the slope. These mini oval (with an average diameter of 35 cm) or quasi-oblong hollows (with varying depths between 10 and 20 cm), which outnumber in the collecting pools, were obviously designed for the residua/pulp/(hereinafter as the “pulp”, matching the left-over part of the pomace) to strain out the initial debris that remains in the floor (Figure 7). When the treading floor began its operation, the mouth of the canal was closed. In the following process, the juice was let to flow down through the filter (as a dispatching element for the juice to be releived from the grape shell, kernel and the pulp) and accumulate in the lower level collecting pool. The secondary pits, which we consider as the settling hollows (with the average depth of 10 cm and diameters of 14 and 16 cm) to get a well refined product, are observable in two of them.

Figure 7

Oval or quasi-oblong pulp pits frequently carved in the collection pools (Ambarçay Salvage Excavation Archive).

The niches observed at the inner side walls of some of the collecting pool (Figure 7, left below; Figure 8) great likely facilitated^[10] climbing down and up and collecting the about to be ready juice in the transport jars, amphorae and cullei (perhaps in the barrels which is a late invention of the Gaul region) or for cleaning purposes. The utensils were then probably taken to a cooler storage space, often a cellar or to fill the dolia (Columella, 12.18) oriented toward the north, in regard of the instructions of (Vitruvius, 1960). As another scenario, we would suggest that the niches were carved to hold a screw press (Frankel, 1999; Hadjisavvas, 1992)^[11] if any other segment like an accumulating unit was annexed to the collecting pools through a secondary canal. There seems no such possibility.

Figure 8

Sample niches in the collecting pools and traces of plaster (right below) (Ambarçay Salvage Excavation Archive).

Right at the “entrance” of the complex lies the large space, which probably served as the collecting area for the grapes brought from the vineyard to be transferred to the treading floors. Over the same space where the utensils were placed before taken to a cellar or directly to shipment, eight shallow pits with an average diameter of 70–80 cm and a depth of 10–25 cm, next to WS1 (Figure 9), must be the seating slots of the carrying containers (Figure 9, top right) in basket form/large bottomed storage and transport vessels (obviously not for the oenochoe).^[12] Likewise, two hollows (one of which was carved into the southern wall), supposedly for the bases of the amphorae (though there appears a thin adjoining channel in between), were observed in the southwest corner of WS8, with varying widths between 17 and 30 and diameters 20–25 cm (Figure 8, right below).

Figure 9

Area of shallow pits (circled white) next to WS1 (Ambarçay Salvage Excavation Archive).

When it comes to the findings, the ceramics, which were mostly found in scattered forms, do not have a wide repertoire in terms of form, technique and decoration. According to their purpose of use, they are classified into two main categories as (i) storage (amphora and pithos) and (ii) cooking (pot and casserole/stewpot) and service ware (plate, bowl, saucer/askos, calyx, flask, jar, jug, etc.). More than half of these utensils are formed by the amphora group, followed by the daily ware, basically the jars and pots, bowls, plates and pitchers, dating the Roman and Medieval period (broadly datable to the third/third to seventh centuries AD), which were seized densely, both in the treading floors and collecting pools, at different depths varying between 1.11 and 4.60 m (Figure 10). Besides the amphorae with everted rims, those with inverted flat rims were recorded. The rim features generally support usage with lids. Some of them that bear handles on the mouth, neck and shoulders are dated to the Roman and Islamic era. The plates, on the other hand, come to the fore with shallow appearances and wide rim diameters in consideration of the base profiles. Due to their shallow forms, many of them signal a multi-functional usage as saucers, bowls or lids. With reservation to a group, which has been yet unidentified, the lids that suit the storage ware are compatible with mouths in wider diameters. As some extraordinary materials, a terracota plate (made of compressed brick) was recovered in WS6 between 0.24 and 0.85 m (Figure 11, AK20-ACP) and the piece of a must-be-Roman carinated glass bracelet was brought to light in WS7 at 2.90 m (Figure 11, AK20-ADA).

Figure 10

Sample sherds (left) and selected drawings (right) (Ambarçay Salvage Excavation Archive).

Figure 11

Photograph and drawing of Terracota plate (WS6) and carinated glass bracelet (WS7) (Ambarçay Salvage Excavation Archive).

4 Approach and Methodology

The basic approach for the interpretation of the primary evidence obtained through field work is to move along with the instrumentality of the comparative studies, with a scrutiny paid to the contemporaneous or selected specimens, as much as possible. The literature on ancient wine making and viticulture, which has expanded exponentially over the past two decades (i.e. Brun, 1993, 2003; Dodd, 2020b; Frankel, 1999; Rodziewicz, 1999), is quite promising; however, only a selection of the few comparanda involving the pressing evidence from various geographies shall be provided along with the flow of the text. Another attempt is to seek intra-site contextuality as the core data are much centered on the on-site connections of the rescued platform. Nevertheless, the flow of the text is designed according not only to practical and theoretical data but also to the available historical background transmitting knowledge on the application of permaculture (regarding economic convergence) and estimated capacity confined to the one-off pressing operations.

The assumption is that, having looked at some general opinions about ancient climate theory (in light of the proxy data and results), present geography and hydrology, an intensive viticulture must have been realized around Ambarçay. The main weakness arises from the insufficiency of the well diagnosable in situ finds, which impede a sound interpretation of chronology in the aggregate. The irrelevance of some small, individual material drifted by the earth moves also makes the dating difficult. Interestingly, no daily object of temporal value except for a bracelet and a plate was grabbed.

5 Inter-Site Context

First and foremost, the waterfront “Roman site” of Ambarçay revealed an impressive body of a compact, orderly arrangement of workshops consisting a series of identical function space. The workshop series can be defined in multi contexts. It is (i) archaeologically a site, (ii) economically an ancient production center, (iii) geo-historically unregistered and temporally yet undefined (but specifically located at the opposite of the necropolis) and (iv) logistically established near a likely permanent water source (cf. Dodd, 2020b, pp. 130–134). Therefore, the entire area seems to exhibit a significative design in itself and with the surrounding sources and amenities.

Due to a noticeable crack that seemingly developed over an active fault (Figure 12a), the two springs (one visualized in Figure 12e) spouting from the lower eastern sector of the bedrock may require extra attention. Parts of a segmental channel (limestone tubuli ^[13]) have been excavated recently, down the level area between the complex and the necropolis (Figure 12b and c). The channel runs for a few meters to the point where a branch definitely makes a new course in the south while the main line seems to twine and continue eastwards (Figure 12d). The groundwater can reach the surface from very deep along many cracks. Since the water source, here, comes out along a crack, it is not affected by the seasonal change in the water table. If the water outlet, the location of the spring, lays at the border of permeable and impermeable layers, the seasonal fluctuations could change the flow of the spring over time. So, the connection of the water channel and the springs can be assumed within the bounds of great possibility whereas a link with the necropolis is arbitrary. Something highly likely is that the channel is a construct of the adjacently lying quarry. Also, in question might be the use of drained water from a feature identified as a cistern, in the west of the necropolis (Coşkun, 2020, p. 591). In the overall context, the position of the complex and the spring spot heading the permanent waters to the channel suggests a direct relationship by which, anyone can speculate the necessity of fresh water, essentially for the cleaning activity in the workshops and/or to be used as an additive in the final processing of the poor-quality wine made from the pomace as a by-product (as often referred by the local people) or even for vitalizing the vineyards expectedly lying in close vicinity (Figure 13, top).

Figure 12

View of the segmental channel (a–b), prospective route (c), visible route (d) and a nearby water source (e) (Ambarçay Salvage Excavation Archive).

Figure 13

Modern vineyards at Ambarçay (top); ancient platform at Aşağı Konak Village (below) (Ambarçay Salvage Excavation Archive).

About the user profile, the complex does not seem to represent a single household economy but might have appealed to a wider group – a community working in a collaborative manner. Otherwise, the site must have been a commonly used space on demand, depending on usage of time, labor force, amount of product and seasonality. The only indicators regarding anthropomorphic imagery are the reliefs found in the rock tomb No. 3^[14] (Figure 14a). There appear two female depictions (Figure 14d and e), perhaps a mother and a daughter, on two sides of the inner frontal wall, at the entrance of the tomb, apart from a yet unspecified motif (an armored warrior?) and a swastika (Figure 14b and c). Their relationship with the complex is regarded as barely possible in the absence of any epigraphic trace, even though specific instances are noted (the Phaselis case or Araban, part 6).

Figure 14

Rock tomb No. 3 (a) and anthropomorphic bas reliefs (d) with 3D restitution (e); motive unspecified (b) and Swastika (c) (Ambarçay Salvage Excavation Archive).

From the point of the temporal context, interestingly, no trade amphora or a characteristic vessel such as the oenochoe, crater or kylix, which are directly or closely related to the wine, has been grabbed, to date. However, some regular findings, though being in poor quantities, excavated in the rock tombs belong to the stone vessels (e.g. a zoomorphic pestle, stone bead) and metal objects (flat arrow head, earring, medallion), along with some late Roman coins and a loom weight.

6 Operating Capacity

This article has no intention of bringing proposals about the estimated production value or feeding capacity of the surrounding landscape with the coverage of the Roman site and our complex but rather perceives it to narrow down to a pressing operation for a single use (of each workshop). The reason is basically owed to our skeptic approach to the problem of qualification and quantification of the economic activity (whether it be at the household/(mini)regional scale) via a context when there is a huge area of research behind for counting the landscape for agricultural productivity. What can be articulated in the first instance is that wine production must have been localized around the Tigris and tributaries, but, as a highly volatile matter, the annual and/or seasonal capacity of the workshops, with full demand perhaps coming from the close vicinity, is a hard thing to fancy, as well.

Archaeologists oriented particularly toward landscape archaeology, historical geography and demography have gained quite a lot of insight from the researches, which tried to count the ancient economies in reference to a certain set of criteria having canonical bases (e.g. polis tributes in proportion to population, amphora capacities, cargo limits, caravan records, production of olive oil per capita, land requirements to be cultivated by a single household, military logistics, legion requirements, pre-modern statistics) as well as their outputs that had value in the maritime trade (indicatively Arnaud, 2011; Bintliff, 1997, 2000; Clarysse & Thompson, 2006; Dodd, 2020a,b; Foxhall, 2007; Garnsey, 1998; Güran, 2011; Lohmann, 1992). Besides, some recent studies have been visible enough for putting additional knowledge on the estimated capacities of a winery installation with sufficient conditions, based on the calculations of volumetric data (cf. Dodd, 2020b, pp. 47–66, 108–130; Hadjisavvas & Chaniotis, 2012, p. 167; Koparal, Tuna, & İplikçioğlu, 2014, p. 101; Oğuz-Kırca & Demirciler, 2015, pp. 52–76).

As the amount of production (without the recurring extractions from the same origin/field, owner, etc., till the related party is completed) would remain unchanged (as the best of worst case) in a single, one-time process (regardless of the labor force as well as time allocated for each separate process), the storage capacity of the collecting pool of each workshop can hint at the minimum potential of this complex.^[15] Then, let’s look at a one-time occasion and proceed with the assumption based on a ceteris paribus condition:

Given that whole landscape and/or wineries possess the equivalent terroir parameters, the farmers or wine makers could convert 60–70% of the pressed fruit (at least half when the case from Burgaz/Knidian Peninsula where 1,850 kg of grapes are thought to have yielded about 1,200 is reconsidered) to grape must (Dodd, 2020b, pp. 65–67; also Koparal et al., 2014, p. 101). To ferment a full late Roman amphora (Peacock & Williams, 1986, passim) (with an optimistic approach that each of which could hold at least 25 l (Mattheson & Wallace, 1982, pp. 294–300,^[16] though never exceeding 48 sextarii)^[17] meant that one had to press, roughly, 39 (36–42) kg of grapes. Each collection pool with the average storage volume of 2,200 l (cf. Dodd, 2020b, p. 117)^[18] (2.2 m³, from Table 1) of wine could fill 88 amphorae. Note that amphora (used herein for the standard calculation purposes only) may not be the reference storage vessel when the seating slots in the form of flat pits (e.g. the pit on the immediate east of the collecting pool at WS1 (Table 1, Figure 9) are reconsidered. Nevertheless, we take it as the basic item of collection. But if one were to base the calculations with regard to a culleus when often used during travels via mules, which corresponds to only 20 amphorae, she/he would come up with ca. 4 cullei [figuring out from what (Varro, 2014, 1.2.7, 1.54.3)], which would suffice, even exceed a person’s annual need.

(Cato, 2012) enlists the proper equipment and means to operate a vineyard of 25 ha (100 iugera), which could be run by 16 people on average (the property owner or a lessee needs an overseer, housekeeper, teamster, muleteer, willow worker, swineherd and 10 laborers, Cato, 11.1.1),^[19] that matches 0.64 capita to run 1 ha (10 decares) land, which also can yield 400 amphora of wine (10,000 L) per annum.

Comparing these numbers, 20,000 L (total of 20 m³) of wine extracted from ca. 31.2 tons of product harvested from a one-time operation at the entire complex would be met by 2 ha of land [based on Columella’s figures: 100 amphorae produced from one iugerum (quarter hectares) (Columella, de Re Rustica, 3.3.2–3)^[20] under the normal conditions; cf. Hadjisavvas & Chaniotis, 2012, p. 167^[21]] with one person (inferred from those of Cato), at the household scale. The number of the pressing operations offering sustainability in such a huge complex could have multiplied taking into account the surrounding agricultural environment in which case a crowd of laborers must have been taking part in the overall process.

7 Diyarbakır and Vicinity in the Pre-Modern Records (Ottoman Tahrirs)

Diyarbakır region has the suitable climate and soil conditions for raising grapes in Upper Mesopotamia. The grape seeds found in the Çayönü excavations, in the same region but slightly to the north, are the substantial evidence (Vouillamoz et al., 2006, pp. 144–145) for that. The local grape is “boğazkere”; its homeland is the Tigris and environs.^[22] The ancient account that clearly conveys the wine trade and traffic between Mesopotamian cities through the Tigris belongs to (Herodotus, 2002, 2013). To him, wine was shipped down the Tigris and Euphrates with boats full of other cargo. As he narrates, the territories around the Tigris were the best lands and “returned as much as two-hundred fold” on average, even three hundred in the best years (Herodotus, 1.193–194).^[23]

The winemaking activities in the region were depicted in the modern historical registers, at the same time. A couple of provinces (Diyarbakır, Siverek, Mardin, Gaziantep, Urfa, Elazığ, etc.) in Southeast and East Anatolia appear in the Ottoman agricultural records. Given the 1909, 1913 and 1914 statistics of the Ottoman Empire, grape, out of the fruit list, has the top priority, with the production values of 1,124,698, 1,172,584 and 1,543,578 tons, respectively, as applicable to the entire country. The vineyards and olive yards accounted for ca. 8–9% of all the planted areas (Güran, 2011, p. 19).^[24] The striking point is the overwhelming majority of viticulture in proportion to the land allocated to olive, in the case of Diyarbakır, where an exceptional reference to Siverek is made (Güran, 2011, pp. 67, 134, 211).^[25]

When the Muslims took over control of many territories in ninth to eighth centuries, marginal decreases occurred in the production of wine, however, did not cease all of a sudden. The proportion of the non-Muslims in the new demographic structure also had the pivotal role for the production of wine from the Levant to the Balkans, which were under the possessions of the Ottoman Empire. Going over the earliest (as much as possible) estimations regarding the population censuses (which are problematic, though), the number of Christian dwellings given for Diyarbakır (attributed to the coverage of the southeast Anatolia region) in the sixteenth century^[26] made up ca. 15% of the total population, which is merely a threshold in addressing the importance of the non-Muslim “drinking wine” communities (without prejudice to the exceptions and transitional Muslims who must have consumed wine in their everyday lives) all across the region, alongside other regional constituents of the Empire. For an in-text comparison, we also refer to the aspect that the non-Muslims around the city rounded to almost half of the Muslims according to 1872–1874 (Behar, 2011, p. 38).^[27] About ethnicity, we find it only in the census of 1881–1893 when the Armenian population was very dominant amongst non-Muslims. At the end of the nineteenth century, it turns out that the non-Muslim population was still at a considerable rate (31.9%) (Behar, 2011, pp. 39–40, 64). Such can be recorded as one of the widespread use indicators of wine throughout the region.

A number of questions can be raised whether the nature of the cultivated landscape changed (Mitchell, 2005)^[28] markedly, including the Ottoman era. There is no reason to reject – in light of archaeological and practical evidence that the production of olive oil was “far more extensive in the Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor than it is today (Mitchell, 2005, p. 93)”, with the exception of certain regions in terms of amount. If wine was to be the leading products of Diyarbakır, hence Ambarçay in the ancient period, the standing point, from the modern lenses, could be the well-known plantation of the high-quality native vitis vinifera- boğazkere (for red wine and coupage only) over the present area between the Tigris and Euphrates.^[29] Boğazkere varieties were also grown in, i.e. Ergani, Maden and Çermik, which were explicitly noted as sub-provinces (of Harput/Mamuret’ül Aziz or Diyarbakır province in 1872) in the reports of Zur Helle von Samo and Ritter (1877, p. 100).^[30]

8 Comparative Look

Pressing installations has been amply dealt with in the scholarly studies (Aydınoğlu & Alkaç, 2008; Aydınoğlu, 2010; Brun, 1993; Cervantes, 2020; Dodd, 2020a,b; Frankel, 1999; Hadjisavvas, 1992; Rodziewicz, 1999; Sivas, 2003; Van Limbergen, 2017) and need not be tackled here in detail. Along with some notorious conceptualizations and descriptions, many published researches demonstrate a clear picture and trend of building and operating the workshops in the open air and rocky topographies (Bulut, 2018, p. 687; Diler, 1995, p. 446). Despite certain degree of overlaps (in those reported in extenso) in various localities of Asia Minor and the Eastern Mediterranean, representative cases and well-defined platforms evidencing the production of wine can be found in the regions such as Lycia, Cilicia, Karia, Lycaonia and Pamphylia (Aydınoğlu & Alkaç, 2008; Baldıran, 2010; Bulut, 2018; Çevik, 1996; Diler, 1995; Dodd, 2020a; Oğuz-Kırca & Demirciler, 2015). Something beyond dispute is that the associated equipment has often been evidenced in open areas and was used without major modifications (due to technologically simpler ways of crushing) in form, since the pre-Classical times in a variety of geographies such as North Africa, Syria, Cyprus, Israel and Phrygia, (Frankel, 1999; Hadjisavvas, 1992; Mattingly & Hitchner, 1995; Rodziewicz, 1999; Sivas, 2003). This is a primary reason for dating and hypothetically unchanged character, although researchers often point to the difficulty of deciding whether a platform suited to wine or olive pressing (Aydınoğlu, 2010, pp. 3–9; Brun, 1993, pp. 510–536; Bulut, 2018, pp. 684–690). Nevertheless, it gets clearer when carpology and biochemistry is applied on the field, as some satisfactory cases are known from Iberia (Cervantes, 2020, passim). The picture, of course, gets more and more vivid down to the Roman and later periods. For example, rock-cut platforms and collecting vats used for treading and extracting grape juice with the help of level beam date back to the end of seventh beginning of the sixth century in Valencia (Las Pilillas Requena) in Iberia where notable amounts of wine production are too speakable but a dramatic increase seems to have occurred in the Roman period where over 700 sites rich in pressing platforms were discovered (Cervantes, 2020, pp. 73–74). As two island economies, Crete and Cyprus are the two other cases in point (where scenes from winemaking were also depicted on the Early Bronze Age vases), which well testified to the continuation of pressing activity for wine, both through textual and archaeological evidence. Their rock–rock installations, which appear relatively modest, address a span of time from the Hellenistic to the third century (Hadjisavvas & Chaniotis, 2012, pp. 162–168).^[31] We are aware that there are also serious problems with the identification of Late Antique wine production as the scholars put a mark on some paralleling cases pertinent to, i.e. Hispanovisigothic and Byzantine populations of Iberia where central wooden screw mechanisms are “imagined” to have been operated to crush and press. (Cervantes, 2020, p. 80). One other example showcasing the presence of an organized viticulture and commercial activity is taken from across the Maltese islands with much earlier evidence (dating a broad band of the fifth/fourth centuries AD to second/first centuries BC). Amongst the describable rock-hewn vats consisting of treading and collecting pans, the so-called “palmenti”, the rectangular and square floors are usually observed shapes. Table amphorae assemblages, which are often represented in the late Punic and early Roman contexts, are amongst the widely encountered group of archaeological evidence attesting to ancient trade (Anastasi, 2020, pp. 93–96).

Turning back to the Anatolian geography, a parallel instance, in respect of the contextual positioning of the pressing platforms close by a funerary landscape has been reported from Fasıllar Village in Lycaonia (near Beyşehir). The workshops of Fasıllar lie far from the residential quarters but right near the burial area. As stated, the decision on the choice over such a spot was linked to the commercial activities (Baldıran, 2010, pp. 304–307); however, their relationship with the necropolis was left unanswered. In the contexts that are closely related to the production activity carried out in the hinterland of the cities, the Pamphylian workshops as well as the individual tombs (Çevik, 1996, pp. 86–88) (i.e. the family khamosorion ^[32] and associated rock-cut workshop at Phaselis) can be interesting, too. In the eyes of the scholars, these were built for wine, taking cognizance of elevation, the surrounding terrace areas and the open-air criterion.^[33] Something to be highlighted here is the existence and availability of the agricultural land. The platforms, in which the grapes were taken to be crushed, should have been as close as possible to the fields where the vineyards were established (Laflı, 2017, p. 57).

The use of the workshops in Lycia was on the rise since the third century and continued until the sixth century, especially with the use of monasteries in Myra and its surroundings. The workshops and the associated apparatus were concentrated in the farmsteads and tower buildings/farms in the rural landscape engaged in terrace agriculture. Ambarçay workshops morphologically bear resemblance to the winery documented in Typallia [Bulut, 2018, pp. 639 (Figure 25), 679–680, 683–684, 690–691, 694–695].^[34]

The width and depth measurements of the rectangular fulcra carved into the bedrock and encountered in Lycia were compiled in the recent studies (Bulut, 2018, pp. 686–688). The Bozburun Peninsula (ancient Karian Khersonesos, also known as the Rhodian Peraia) where some parallel measurements were recorded at Selimiye, Taşlıca and Bozburun town partially also confirms this group. Especially, the workshops with the twin fulcra (similar to those reported from Lycia) found in the same Peninsula (twin in situ on Kaletepe ridge near Losta, singular and in situ in the khora of Tymnos; monolithic re-used one around the sacred space- temple of Apollo in Phoinix) are noteworthy. Although the case of the fulcra has not direct comparative grounds in our study, the canal widths (carved wide enough, obviously for wine as well as the flowing channels) of Ambarçay (see Table 1) are greatly in accordance with the Lycian and Karian (diameters frequently recorded between 10 and 18/20 cm) samples.^[35] Nevertheless, in Ambarçay, there is the dearth of an installation apparatus such as the orbis and trapetum which were often utilized for olive oil extraction in Karia (Diler, 1995) and Central Lycia where open air rock-hewn contexts were systematically operated between the Hellenistic and late Byzantine periods (e.g. Karabel (İşler, 2014, pp. 710–711)).

Another large-scale, open-air site abundant in the presses was uncovered in Tarsus, Cilicia Pedias, which looked greater in size and function (out of 17 presses, 15 goes to wine and 2 to olive oil; Tekocak & Adıbelli, 2010, p. 56) than the workshops of Ambarçay. There is quite a great deal of evidence that the Cilicians were engaged in trade of wine in Late Antiquity, as corroborated with the availability of the LRA1 (Carthage Late Roman) type amphorae (with a wide geographical distribution over the Mediterranean belt) that were observed from Cilicia to north Syria (Decker, 2005, pp. 56–57). Cilicia is quite rich in terms of pressing beams and slots. Rectangular treading floor dimensions are also close to each other. As reported, the collecting tanks, corresponding to approximately 900–1,000 L of liquid, in a way indicate the bulk and amount of the production in the region (Aydınoğlu & Alkaç, 2008, pp. 278–289). Large scale production of wine in the close environs of Korykos and Elaiussa Sebaste in the early Byzantine (5–6^th centuries) period are amongst some fine cases evidenced through the tomb inscriptions which mention the names of at least 15 oinegoi (wine traders), and typical LR1 type amphorae assemblages (Iacomi, 2010, pp. 23–26) found at the site. Rock-hewn circular examples with a fulcrum mechanism, reminiscent of some Karian parallels were, too, documented in the territorium of Elaiussa Sebaste (Baratta, 1999, pp. 131–139).

A lavish operation area managed with notably big screw presses for, i.e. olive oil in the late Roman period and organized as the rural industries to produce several hundred liters per day, was in Leptis Magna (Mitchell, 2005, p. 99).^[36] In Israel, some fine installations dating the Byzantine and Islamic era were found at the site of Be’er Shemaʿ (presumably housing a Roman castellum) in the west of the Negev desert. The seventh century that was fixed as the cessation of the use of the “industrial” site for a yet unexplained reason but estimates go that exporting has stopped, along with a decline in the population due to the Justinian plague ca. 542/541 and Islamic conquests (Erickson-Gini, Dolinka, & Shilov, 2015, pp. 214–221, 245). As a recent discovery, an installation equipped with the screw press, along the incense route in the Ramat Negev region, might be of interest within the scope of this study. A platform of 40 m where about 6,500 l of raw wine could be collected in the juice run-off vat was sufficiently large to provide an army unit with wine or to export the product (https://www.archaeology.wiki).^[37]

In the Urartian country, basically the rock cut inscriptions (e.g. Karataş, Köşk Stella) enlighten us about the involvement of the eastern Anatolian communities in viticulture, specifically around Lake Van, as well as the Iron Age fossilized grape seeds recovered at Güzelsu Village (Gürpınar) (Alaeddinoğlu & Türker, 2015, pp. 11–12). Hypothetically, there is a view on the possible use of wine in the sacred spaces of the Urartians; liquid and dry libations were made in the religious ceremonies in the courtyard of the Ayanis Temple, and wine and water were used in the liquid ones (Çilingiroğlu, 2020, pp. 142–143). However, we can obtain no specific information relating to the analogous installations and measurements thereof. Over a closer terrain, individual or collective purpose pressing platforms were traced in the lowlands of Zerzevan Castle, in the south of Diyarbakır. Scattered across the plain area, stretching far as the frontiers of Aşağı Konak Village (in Çınar Province), we observed a handful of them near the modern fields but these were often disturbed due to extensive lands use (Figure 13, below). In the same region, an approximate case is the workshop excavated in Dede Ruins, lying within the borders of Gaziantep. Here is the Late Antique period rural character site, which underwent a rescue study due to an expected inundation of Doğanpınar Dam. Some other historical winery workshops and rock tombs also diagnosed in the Roman countryside are omnipresent at Araban town.

9 Interpretation and Discussion

Supplemental discussion becomes a need to move beyond a mere typological approach and explain the criteria for the positioning and pattern of servicing of the workshops. Given the main body of data, natural setting, comparative evidence and past atmospheric situation, a preliminary assessment of the excavated area is made as follows.

The environmental positioning of the site and the principal behind its planning was (i) initially linked to topography and geological character determined by the hard limestone grounds, (ii) the adjacent quarry, (iii) proximity to the hydro source and (iv) probably ancient suitable climatic conditions (below).

The principles of building pressing installations followed the similar tradition until mechanization entered agriculture with the advent of the Industrial period. The proximity to the quarry was seemingly due to the availability of the hard ground necessary for the survival of the workshops into the ages for traditional use and recurring production activity by the coming generations.

The treading floors, by nature, were used to crush the laid fruit and sometimes leave it to the first step fermentation under sunlight. An extra terrace-like platform which is wide enough (20–40 cm) for a few laborers to line up during the act of pressing was recorded in only one workshop (WS4). Here is the integrated part of a treading floor in the form of a bench where the first-step treading could have been performed as seated. Pressing could also be done by squeezing bags or sacks (Foxhall, 2007, pp. 131–134, 205–207; Hadjisavvas, 1992, pp. 119–123; McHugh, 2017, pp. 88–89) (occasionally for the second time) but this technique usually required a fulcrum and prelum. In WS2 and WS6, there appears a small pit at the center, which can, though a slender chance, be associated with the usage of a screw press (and perhaps a litus). On the other hand, the five shallow pits recorded in WS2 as below the level of the canal could also be one of those preserved in the original situation rather than being assumed as some late usage hollows. In WS5, the drum shape protrusions that hint at late usage could relate to a mechanical operation at the site. We are not sure.

Preferences for the open air are generally explained with the creation of the necessary conditions for the initial fermentation process of the juice under sunlight (as a catalyzer causing dehydration for an incrementation of the level of glycose in the grape must) (Bulut, 2018, p. 687; Diler, 1995, p. 446). We have no claim that the complex was an open air structure, however, could speculate only over the possibility that it be roofed,^[38] even though no complete postholes could be traced due to severe abrasions in the bedrock, over the side walls of the workshops. A typical case is known from Burgaz site, Datça where the restitution of a winery installation diagnosed with super structures (aided with the abundance of roof tiles) was tried (Koparal et al., 2014, pp. 94–102).^[39] Successive wineries were reported from Catalonia (e.g. La Sagrera) where open air storage spaces furnished with dolia defossa and long roofed buildings divided into two or three naves contributed to the exportation of wine to the end of the second century and thereafter down to the fifth to eighth centuries AD (Cervantes, 2020, pp. 74–75, 78). Although nothing could be evidenced nearby the mentioned shallow pits that probably suited for carrying vessels, the complex could well have housed a group of dolia matching cella vinaria like spaces if it was roofed, or semi-open (Van Limbergen, 2017, pp. 320–323), at the same time.^[40] We can never be sure.

There is not, archaeologically, a tangible clue whether the bulk of the economy of ancient Ambarçay was rooted in grape growing and wine industry but ethnoarchaeology, as well as the early modern agricultural records offer some practical answers to such queries. Notable figures given for 1909, 1913–1914 hint at the relative value of viticulture in the surrounding region. As per the results of a broad spectrum of referential proxy data used as the input for ancient climate modeling in a wider geographic coverage (Kaufmann et al., 2020, pp. 10–12) and paleoenvironments (Miebach, Stolzenberger, Wacker, Hense, & Litt, 2019, pp. 110–112; particularly van Zeist, Woldring, & Stapert, 1975, pp. 53–143, for Anatolian wide fruits and cereal growing dated to fourth to second millennia van Zeist & Woldring, 1978, pp. 250–275, on the paleovegetation construction of Turkey and predominancy of oak forests in quaternary paleogeography of the southeastern Turkey), the atmospheric conditions were warmer and even slightly wetter (Cheng et al., 2015, pp. 8645–8648; Develle et al., 2011) in the eastern provinces of the Romans (the Levantine included), in the period between second to third centuries and fourth to fifth centuries BC (McCormick et al., 2012, pp. 180–207; Marx, Haunschild, & Bornmann, 2018, pp. 14–16). Such might have had an impact on the variety of products grown in humid environments and, moreover, could have positively affected the necessary level of water for their transportation through the pre-established corridors, including wine as almost a regular item. Yet, a variety of data has been reported from the environs of Tigris, at the same time. Pestles, mortars and charred remains of vitis vinifera, for whatever usage, were found in Hirbemerdon Tepe where particularly macro remains of grape reflect a certain level of crop economy, as also confirmed with the written texts found at Titriş Höyük (Laneri, Schwartz, & Ur, 2015, pp. 539–541, 550, 559).

Regarding our assumptions by which we mandatorily disregarded the problem of absolute dating in the dearth of very well identifiable material of archaeological value (e.g. an iconographic depiction, content of a storage ware, litus), it can be attested that the general structure and morphology of each pressing platform also fit to the mainlines of a typical workshop designed for producing homemade wine and related outputs of the grape (basically vinegar, grape juice and candies – the so-called dried fruit roll-up or pulp sheet) in various periods. But the absence of some characteristic elements such as the liti somehow reduces the possibility of olives. In this regard, they are to be taken as some fine representatives of the potentially all-time-usable installations. Nevertheless, regarding the possible use of technology and accompanying equipment, it seems that the mechanism applied in the majority of the complex accords with the working principle of an improved screw technology (in the middle) equipped with multiple fermentation vats (perhaps roofed) as observed in the Byzantine wineries operated with screws in the middle roof) (Dray, 2003, p. 221).

A chronological markup is also suggested on a comparative basis (regarding typology) where some parallel cases come from Cilicia (with the increasing local demand in fourth to sixth centuries) (Mitchell, 2005, pp. 100–102), Lycia and Lycaonia. Amongst all, Cilicia appears to yield the most suited comparanda with large size collecting tanks operated for wine production (Aydınoğlu & Alkaç, 2008) when a narrower geography of the Eastern Mediterranean is reconsidered.

Hardly has another locality, except for Tarsus, matches the score of Ambarçay yet (unless otherwise stated elsewhere): 9 successive wine workshops. A plausible reason for the remarkably large size area could have had direct proportion to the political and economic expansions in a particular period, e.g. the early Byzantine when an appeal to the countryside made a boom in fourth to sixth centuries AD (Chavarria & Lewit, 2004, pp. 3–52; Serin, 2013, pp. 196) as well as the impact of the Roman conquests in the eastern provinces of Anatolia, as far as the Sassanid frontiers. The utilization of land and maritime routes linking the southern shores with the central Anatolia Plateau and far up to the Konstantinopolis is a no less refutable factor in the expansion of the volume in wine exports, considerably in Cilicia where Antiochia ad Cragum (Dodd, 2020a, pp. 467–480) can be a comparative case for understanding the impact the travel of knowledge and innovation had on the pressing technologies, which became relatively greater in size with the passage of time.

In Ambarçay, one may interestingly come across the co-existence (spatially) of the workshops and tombs, which may point to some degree of standardization in the design and construction of specific purpose space in the Roman era suburbium. To give meaning to any undefined relationship with this nearly lying necropolis, the exempla (from various regions) so referred can be the points of support, as we envision, that requires specific discussion. All the workshops reported from Fasıllar had physical share with the necropolis. We assess that a direct relation to a libation activity can hardly be a short-cut answer since ritual cups were not, in all terms, energy taking to be transported to a burial area. Tarsus (with the exception of the fulcra, Tekocak & Adıbelli, 2010, p. 59^[41]) is also a case which is worth of a discussion along with the workshops lying in the necropolis area. However, a recurring approach taken on their relationship with the third century sarcophagi (Tekocak & Adıbelli, 2010, p. 60) is far from offering a thorough answer to our questions, either. Notwithstanding, the spatial coverage of our complex is too large to be nominated as a small-scale production center at the ownership of a household (perhaps relating to the rock dwelling so mentioned) whose members could be buried in the rock tombs. Moreover, these tombs could well have been called forth due to a space-centric idea, in a ready-built area, after the date of original use. A prerequisite for such an action could be their association with a settlement pattern (except for the individual rock dwelling (Coşkun, 2020, pp. 590–591), Figure 15, which is yet to be found in a residential area.

Figure 15

Photograph (a) and 3D restitution (b) of the rock dwelling (Ambarçay Salvage Excavation Archive).

A commonality with Be’er Shemaʿ pressing units relates to the square form plastered collecting pools, with 1.2 m depth values and the depression hollows for settling the organic debris (Erickson-Gini et al., 2015, p. 218). Aside from the importance of dating, the output (20,000 L) attainable from the entire complex^[42] at the end of a one-time pressing operation (even though open-air fermentation vats could be filled multiple times per vintage, cf. Dodd (2020b, pp. 117–118) at Ambarçay would far exceed the potential given for the winepress at the Ramat Negev region (6,500 L), which was hypothetically linked to an export and/or a military oriented activity.

The designation of the complex next to two springs evinces that it could have been planned for mass production (under the supervision of local bourgeois or Roman rulers) also through follow-up in the ancient scripts mentioning the mobility of tradable products via the Tigris and Euphrates and, given the abundance of wine (and perhaps side products) production facilities, it becomes very likely that the residents or involvers had a surplus of these products or collected them to be transported in typical, sometimes various size amphorae via simple water vessels, namely Kelek (often made of sheep and goat skins),^[43] for short and intermediate distance operations over the Tigris or loaded in caravans for overland operations (Güney, 1990, pp. 324–327; Herodotus, 1.194). Ambarçay, as a site, is located on the caravan passageways that fork into the Taurus mountain range and Bingöl. The increasing demand in southern Anatolia (where the core seems to have been Cilicia) and Syria between fourth and sixth centuries AD, which also intersects with the foundation of Constantinople, needs a careful investigation, even though the demands of the military Annona system also sided with olive oil (particularly Hild & Hellenkemper, 1990; Mitchell, 2005, p. 99). Furthermore, one also needs to think that situated on the nexus of important overland routes, easy access from north Syria to Cilicia and other urbanized regions of the Anatolian plateau via the land connections when Cilician access to the maritime commerce of the Eastern Mediterranean and further inland prospered in the Late Antiquity (Decker, 2005, pp. 51–52; Dodd, 2020a, pp. 468–480; also Dodd, 2020b, pp. 133–140; Van Limbergen, D, 2017, pp. 307–322, particularly for Antiochia ad Cragum wine exports).

In consideration of the proximity of this region to the essential bases and legion cities, such as Zerzevan, wine could also have been produced for the needs of soldiers who consumed in serious volumes. Another reasonable approach stepping on the demand for wine is the early modern demographic background in which pressing work must have continued at least at the household scale until the beginning of the twentieth century.

Pertaining to the construction period of the complex, which could have undergone a multi-stage appearance or development (as also evidenced by the late use protrusions in WS5, the plastered surfaces in WS6 and WS7; and further by a recent tandoori, which was removed before the start of excavation in the trench WS7), the presence of the rock tombs could matter to the extent that typical findings would provide an insight to a likely overlap time. Yet, there are limited dating criteria. In the light of surface ceramics (greatly lead by the amphorae) seized at various levels (but overwhelmingly the necropolis) and some late Roman coins grabbed at the surface, a temporary interpretation can be laid in favor of the late Roman period [specifically the third centuries AD and thereafter (till the advent of the Islamic conquest)]. According to the results of the morphological analysis of the pottery fragments, the chronology of the vessels presents minimum parallels with some of those used in wine trade and is in accordance with the span of time attributable to the contexts previously defined. While the amphorae generally come to the fore with their local and regional characteristics, they can also be thought to have been influenced from Mesopotamia, especially Syria, which indicates a regional interaction. Particularly, the storage and cooking-service ware form the two major ware class, hence indicating a notable index of the way products were handled over the area. Although amphorae can be multi-functional, many look suitable for the transportation of food and beverage, including wine, through the local and trans-Mediterranean processes. The frequencies of the flat base storage (albeit lacking carpological or biochemical analyses over the site; however, reminiscent of the orcae reported from cella vinaria in Las Musas, Navarra, cf. Cervantes, 2020, p. 78) and transportation assemblages, though few and insufficient to establish full chronologies, could have entered into the Mediterranean export and long-distance trade service network, from overland stations via camelback transport or other cargo means. Despite a number of discrete productions, a fine group of regional comparanda revealing utilitarian shapes involves the assemblages reported from northern Mesopotamian cooking ware, which are, in general, similar to the Brittle Ware (Vokaer, 2010a, pp. 116, 127; Vokaer, 2010b, pp. 606–608) group (a long-lived family which were mainly produced in the northern part of Syria and exported to the neighboring regions and sites, from the Roman through the Byzantine and early Islamic periods), which can be broadly identified with round-bodied pots and casseroles with horizontal handles.

The ceramic finds (mostly dated to the third to seventh centuries AD) are also to be evaluated within later Islamic period, particularly dating the eighth to fourteenth centuries. It is thought that the unique samples may have originated from local or regional production. A selection of them (Figure 16) generally bears semblance with some of those reported from Zerzevan Castle (Ayus, 2021, pp. 111–153) and Dara (Anastasiopolis) (Tosun, 2021) being in the first place. Then may come those of Mardin Mor Yakup Church (Ergürer & Ergürer, 2021),^[44] Zeugma (Reynolds, 2014), Dura Europos and Ain Sinu (Oates & Oates, 1959; also Tosun, 2021), Apamea (Oates & Oates, 1959, Vokaer, 2017), Cizre-Silopi (Algaze, Hammer, & Parker, 2012),^[45] Harabebezikan (Alp, 2009), Beirut (Reynolds et al., 2010) (cf. Figure 18–19), Umm el-Tlel (Majarek & Taha, 2004) and samples found all across the sites in Levant, from Cilicia to Gaza or imports thereof (Reynolds, 2005).^[46] Whatever the date is, the way in which the land was used as a specific function area (also valid for the de-functionalization of the area and/or late period pottery usage, theoretically) deserves an attention. The raised topography over which the complex was built and the proximity to the Stream of Ambarçay hint at something; the complex was the output of lateral thinking, which indicates that its makers deliberated over a variety of factors required for an efficient and integrated utilization of the site.

Figure 16

Samples of some commonly found sherds and profiles (left and middle) and selected drawings (right) (Ambarçay Salvage Excavation Archive).

Of the extraordinary evidence, the terracota plate recovered in the “latest” WS6 (reconsidered below) and bearing the yet undefined motifs^[47] recall the amulets carved with the Germanic runes (also called futhark) perhaps of the Semitic origin, e.g. found in Denmark (dated 200 AD, Morris, 1988, p. 157)^[48] or i.e. norse talismans. The possibility that the makers of such marks could have been the legionaries (e.g. the IVth Scythica Legio missioned in Zeugma (Görkay, 2017, pp. 153–157, 159–161, 164–166) and based in Syria province) should not be overlooked, either.^[49]

10 Conclusion

Wineries were one of the makers of the ancient economies. The complex (slightly above 5 decares) excavated at Ambarçay probably did not serve an ordinary household economy when examined in terms of location and contextual status. The configuration of the site is seemingly the output of a well-schemed work, primarily regarding the spatial advantage, orientation according to aspect and atmospheric conditions. In terms of plan, layout and typological features, it must have been used solely for producing wine.

In our opinion, the co-positioning of the necropoleis and workshops has no specific grounds (i.e. to speculate over a direct relation to the commercial activity, etc.). Instead of trying to fill this up, we support the idea on the vitality of the fresh sources like a waterway that allows transportation in the vicinity, by taking inspiration directly from the absolute coordinates and historical geography. As a matter of fact, the springs next to the workshops hold the light to the potential existence of all kinds of economic activities understandable in the narrow context. In a wider context, Ambarçay Stream (but basically the Tigris when considered in terms of topography and flow rate) should have functioned as the lifeblood of economic activity with its seasonal fluidity. Due to the physical proximity criterion, the product filled in amphorae or wineskins here, at the field in the countryside must have been transported to the keleks to be sent to the nearest locations.

Any period before the late Roman or approaching Late Antiquity (around the third to fourth centuries AD, maybe even later) may also be a terminus ante quem for the workshops. As the most reused and/or latest unit where plasters were preserved in both segments and a plate was recovered at relatively a shallower depth, WS6 can be regarded as the reference unit for predicting when it was no longer in use. It is strongly possible that this is the latest installation where Islamic period cooking and storage ware were uncovered. No dating seems to be possible in the near future since the excavated fields of “Roman” Ambarçay had to be closed up as per the dam project. Nevertheless, the potentiality of the complex hinting at increased production volumes and evoking a possibility for the application of the screw press technology in the middle spaces could have been far more relation to the late Antiquity, particularly associable with the early Byzantine era. In comparison to the sites that have offered a variety of material culture, mainly the storage and kitchen wares from Cilicia and other maritime routes reaching the Levant and stretching across Syria and the Euphrates, one may replace Ambarçay within a wider regional context, though with varying local forms peculiar to the surrounding area.

As a product offered to humanity through Iran (maybe even the Caucasus) and the Mediterranean Basin, the interaction process of the region, incorporating the surrounding lands like Hevsel Gardens, with the Persian country and the Levant, can be reassessed in the framework of new research. Taking into account all the discussions above, we have the tendency to suggest an interval: the complex could have ceased to operate for large-scale production before or around the end of the late Antiquity when Islamic philosophy entered the region by the seventh century.

This study, in any case, lacks substantial data about the commercialization and precise flow routes of the wine which was, however, undoubtedly processed in the successive installations as presented in our case, as the core side of the data part. Equally same is that it looks barely possible to make any iteration with respect to the production capacities (excluding the single operation potential), at least at this stage. In response to that, calculating the production and/or feeding load of the region is a priority. When confined to the economic convergence of the value of wine recorded in the ancient and pre-modern sources, the total relative capacity of a single, one-time pressing operation (independent of the land potential), generates an idea over the production figures that could suffice to more than, i.e. a latifundium or a resident population. Depending on the recurring usage per vintage, if this is to be also associated with export, making inferences through the pressing installations can lead to serious margins of error.