Petr Charvát - Mesopotamia Before History (2008, Routledge)

The chalcolithic 71

representation of pigs from Hijara’s layer XI or X, Hijara et al. 1980, 152) or Yarimtepe II (Munchaev and Merpert 1981, 301–302) and in southern ones (Tell Awayli, see pp. 53–54), as well as outside Mesopotamia (Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria: see the references in Breniquet 1990, 84 and 1996, 61, accompanied by a decrease in cattle numbers). This is important because pigs do not tolerate the nomadic way of life (Flannery 1983, 183) and their proliferation on archaeological sites probably indicates sedentarization. The slaughter age of the pigs, frequently below 1 year (Yarimtepe II, Tell Awayli, Tell Arpachiyah) implies that pigs constituted a meat source. The other phenomenon peculiar to Chalcolithic cultures is the marked presence of cattle on some sites, especially those of lowland character such as Eridu (Flannery and Wright 1966; Meadow 1971, 14 lf.), Tell Awayli (see pp. 53–54) and Ras al-Amiya by Nippur (Flannery and Cornwall 1969; Stronach 1982, 39). The same feature has been observed in the north (e.g. Tell Abu Husaini: Tusa 1984, 275) and of exceptional interest is the fact that at Arpachiyah, I.Hijara has registered an increase in cattle bones from his layer VII, but in an area outside the fortified enclosure this was accompanied by a decreasing proportion of sheep and goats. This fact, and the palaeozoological observation that most Chalcolithic cattle had reached a mature age before slaughter converge to indicate that these animals were perceived as more permanent sources of food. In view of subsequent developments, especially of the first occurrence of ploughs and carts in the immediately following Uruk culture script, the idea that the increasing proportion of cattle among Chalcolithic animal remains reflects the more urgently felt need for an alternative energy source, especially for traction (and carrying) power, as well as for the cattle’s contribution to the ancient diet in the form of milk and milk products, comes to mind quite naturally. Indeed, plough marks have been registered on the KS-102 site in Iranian Khuzestan dating to the Susa A, or Ubaid 4, period (Wright, Miller and Redding 1980, 275). An alternative explanation would envisage the exploitation of cattle for long-distance transport as beasts of burden (Ovadia 1992, 26–27). The fact that Chalcolithic cultures display a visibly greater amount of interconnection and mutual contact than the preceding periods is undeniable. The growing importance of cattle seems to have been confined to Mesopotamian plains as the neighbouring communities of present-day Iran (Deh Luran plain: Flannery and Cornwall 1969, 436) indicate far less spectacular rises. Much as in the cereal-growing sphere, Chalcolithic animal husbandry indicates the development of specialization, professionalization and increasing labour inputs. One of the buildings excavated at Tell Abada (Jasim 1989, 80, Fig. 2—layer II building I, discussion on pp. 83–85) very strongly suggests—by its situation at the settlement edge, by an alignment of shallow rectangular brick basins 70–80 cm high and containing reeds, straw and grain (a manger?), by a bitumen-lined basin (for watering?) and by a layer of black organic character covering its courtyard—an interpretation in terms of a communal sheepfold or cattle pen. Results of a surface survey in northern Iraq (Oates 1980, 308) suggest animalhusbandry activities specialized on a regional level. This idea may be supported by palynological data from north-west Syria (van Zeist and Woldring 1980, esp. p. 120), indicating that the first human interferences with the local floral, starting around 4000 BC, imply assarting activities accompanied by specialized horticulture as well as cattlekeeping. It should be pointed out that the exercise of agriculture and larger-scale animal husbandry within one and the

Mesopotamia before history 72

Figure 4.12 A Chalcolithic painted bowl. Halaf culture (sixth-fifth millennium BC), the site of Tell Brak (after von Wickede 1986, 20, Fig. 18)

same agricultural area is by no means excluded and belonged to the salient features of pre-industrial Near Eastern communities as far back as the preIslamic era at the very latest (see Macdonald 1992, esp. pp. 9–10). The trends of professionalization and intensification of particular subsistence activities must thus have also led towards a more complex community organization, seeking to harmonize activities of the various subsistence groups in a manner that would favour the least harmful way of coexistence possible.

The chalcolithic 73

Figure 4.13 A Chalcolithic painted bowl. Halaf culture, the site of Tell Halaf (after von Wickede 1986, 21, Fig. 21)

The sphere of animal husbandry, remaining within the traditional range of domestic animals, thus seems to reflect two important trends. One of these, sedentarization of human communities, is indicated by the increasing proportion of pig remains in palaeozoological evidence. The other, probably expressing a trend of more general character, shows an attempt to procure additional energy inputs, especially in the form of animals as suppliers of traction (and/or carrying?) power and of major dietary contributions. Animal-husbandry activities show a growing measure of professionalization.

An interesting sidelight on Chalcolithic specialization of subsistence activities dependent on geographical factors may be seen in evidence for hunting, fishing and food collection. These activities clearly occupied an important position in riverine or lacustrine landscapes that abounded in wildlife resources. Such Sumerian sites as Ras al-Amiya (Flannery and Cornwall 1969, 437; Stronach 1982, 39), Eridu (Flannery and Wright 1966, 61) or Ubaid culture Tell Uqair (Lloyd and Safar 1943, 149), as well as the Jebel Hamrin site of Tell Abada (Pollock 1999, 82 and 83, Table 4.1) all show evidence for hunting gazelle, onager and wild boar and for collection of freshwater molluscs (for southern Mesopotamia in general see Wright and Pollock 1986, 319f.). A most welcome

Mesopotamia before history 74

addition to our information on this sphere of Chalcolithic economy is represented by the results of the excavations at Shams ed-Din Tannira, a Halaf culture site in northern Syria (Uerpmann 1982). Animal bones found at this site fell into the following groups: unidentified cases (19.33 per cent), domestic (34.43 per cent) and wild species (43.92 per cent). The domestic animal sample consists of roughly equal amounts of ovicaprid and cattle bones with admixtures of dog and goat remains. Most of the wild animal remnants belong to onager (53.20 per cent), the rest being made up of a rather varied array of such game as wild boar, buffalo, various kinds of deer, gazelle, fox, wild cat and birds (stork) and a single river shell. The inhabitants of this site, who must have been specialized hunters keeping domestic animals (or acquiring them from nomadic groups?) as a supplementary food source, probably frequented humid reed-covered areas, riverside woods but also steppes or half-desert. At another site of similar character, Khirbet eshShenef in the Balikh-river valley (Weiss 1991, 690–691), remains of domestic animals consisted of a majority of goats accompanied by somewhat fewer pigs and cattle but some 36 per cent of the overall count belonged to hunted species such as onager and, less so, gazelle. Another site of similar character has been at least hinted at (Weiss 1991, 690, n. 23). On the other hand, plain dwellers did hunt gazelle and sometimes even onager or fish but the prominence of this activity fell much below that of the riverine sites. The cases in point are Arpachiyah (Hijara et al. 1980, 152f.), Yarimtepe II (Munchaev and Merpert 1981, 304), Tell Abu Husaini (Tusa 1984, 276), the Deh Luran plain sites (Hole and Flannery 1967, 184; Hole, Flannery and Neely 1969, 265) and Tepe Yahya (Tosi 1976, 174). The last two cases also display a marked avoidance of wildfowl and aquatic foods, even if these had been consumed previously in the Deh Luran plain sites. On the other hand, hunting might have acquired some social prominence in the non-riverine communities. We owe to Henry T.Wright (Wright et al. 1981, 66) the observation that at contemporary Tepe Farukhabad in the Deh Luran plain, more prominent architectures tended to attract gazelle remains as well as conical beakers, presumably indicating more elaborate table manners and therefore increased status of inhabitants of such structures. Average housing was accompanied by remains of equids, sheep and goats. A similar proposition, seeing in hunting activities a non-economic pursuit (for symbolic or training purposes?), has been advanced by Pierre Ducos (see Breniquet 1996, 62). Origins of the symbolical dimension of the Assyrian royal hunt (Wiggermann 1996, 219–220) may perhaps be sought in this remote age.

Thus it follows that the major trends of specialization and professionalization did not bypass the sphere of exploitation of wildlife resources. Inhabitants of whole sites specialized in hunting activities but even in cases where hunting represented only a component of the whole range of subsistence activities the most abundant and most easily accessible sources were usually exploited. In riverine/lacustrine areas the hunters targeted the resources of the watercourses themselves and the game of the adjacent ecological niches. In plain or submontane sites the traditional collective hunting techniques retained their importance, contributing perhaps even to incipient social differentiation, possibly in relation to personal skill and achievement (or in consequence of the organizational duties of community leaders?).

The chalcolithic 75

Figure 4.14 A Chalcolithic painted bowl. Halaf culture, the site of Tell Arpachiyah (after von Wickede 1986, 20, Fig. 17)

Mesopotamia before history 76

Figure 4.15 A Chalcolithic painted bowl. Halaf culture, the site of Tepe Gawra (after von Wickede 1986, 20, Fig. 19)

By way of a conclusion of this brief sketch of Chalcolithic agriculture let us summarize the main points again. In comparison with the creative Neolithic the Chalcolithic performance lacks originality. Its strength, however, rests on two pillars: diffusion of Neolithic discoveries and inventions throughout the whole oikoumene and increasing professionalization and specialization, resulting in an inevitable economic intensification. Most of the cereal cultigens and domestic animals, as well as such sophisticated procedures as field irrigation, now circulated widely among Chalcolithic communities. Settlement sedentarization certainly occurred (horticulture, pig-keeping) but we are hard

The chalcolithic 77

put to decide which came first, sedentarization or intensification. Sedentarization of human communities places an extraordinary strain on their environment, the carrying capacity of which is stretched to the utmost, while its maintenance requires special measures in order to support the human group in question permanently, without any chance at restitution of pristine natural conditions. On the other hand, intensive sedentary agriculture brings in considerably higher energy returns, estimated at about five times as much as shifting agriculture, with comparable working times (Peoples and Bailey 1988, 161, Box 82). Here it may be significant that the earliest evidence for sedentary communities comes from the southern Sumerian sites which must have enjoyed abundant and untouched resources, living in an environment with unusually strong faculties of recovery after human interference (pigs and orchards at Tell Awayli from Ubaid 0; on sedentarism in naturally rich landscapes: Bruce Dickson 1990, 186, 188). In the north, sedentarization seems to have lasted longer and involved special measures for harnessing more energy. The increase in pig quantity at Arpachiyah happened only after some time had elapsed since its foundation, and growth of the representation of cattle, a potential food and energy source, took place later still. At Yarimtepe II the local inhabitants slaughtered and ate a substantial amount of young cattle regardless of the disadvantages which their contemporaries elsewhere did not fail to perceive. Once achieved, sedentarization offers the best conditions for the full exploitation of the economic potential of the respective ecological niches and for the application of subsistence strategies most appropriate for the procurement of an optimum amount of comestibles without incurring irreparable damage to the natural recovery faculties of the environment. This, at least, seems to have happened in the Chalcolithic with its systematic tapping of whatever natural resources were available by means of increasing expertise and professionalization. Present evidence implies that the origins of large-scale agricultural specialization and the emergence of groups of peasants, cattle-herders and hunters from the initial indistinct mass of mixed-agriculturalists-cum-herders-cum-food-gatherers are to be sought in the Chalcolithic. What was happening at Neolithic Umm Dabaghiyah within one single community took place in the entire sphere of Chalcolithic Halaf culture.

In the sphere of processing natural resources the Chalcolithic period witnessed the introduc-tion or initial diffusion of fundamentally new technologies in most production branches that may be investigated archaeologically. These changes, although sometimes applied on small scale only, opened the way for the seemingly enormous technological ‘leap’ of the following Uruk culture period.

Among the artificial materials, faience now moved in to occupy a position of evergrowing importance. Faience pendants and seals, mostly green (see the green head of aTell Hassuna statuette from the Neolithic, p. 7) and blue, turned up at both Arpachiyah and Gawra, at the Ur Ubaid culture cemetery and at Eridu XI and VII (Moorey 1985, 142). Mesopotamian craft specialists had known about and applied glazing of various materials since at least Ubaid 3 times (ibid. 137–138). Although bitumen served human groups from at least the seventh pre-Christian millennium, Chalcolithic craftsmen and craftswomen reached a considerable degree of sophistication in its treatment, including refinement (Marschner and Wright 1978, 169–170; Connan and Ourisson 1993). Only bone remained untouched by the new inventions, supplying, as ever, a material for the production of awls, spatulae and occasional whistles (Tepe Gawra). Chalcolithic masters reached an unparalleled degree of perfection in working with clay, from which they made

Mesopotamia before history 78

the most exquisitely decorated pottery of the entire prehistoric Near East, embodying one of the peak achievements of the potter’s craft in human history. Halaf culture pottery was fashioned by hand but very carefully treated and painted with colours rich in kalium and iron (illite clays), poor in calcite and very finely levigated (Figures 4.16–4.19). Original patterns used red and black colours; slips and whitewash appeared in Late Halaf times so that true polychromy emerged only at Arpachiyah TT 6 (von Wickede 1986, 8–9). Also, some Late Halaf Arpachiyah patterns show clear antecedents in the Hajji Muhammad (=Ubaid 2) culture of the south (ibid. 32). Ornamentation of Halaf pottery possesses the same character and shows the same chronological developments throughout the whole Halaf culture diffusion sphere (von Wickede 1986, 27–30, see also Campbell 1986). The main principle of Halaf pottery decorative patterns, distinct from both the preceding Hassuna and Samarra cultures and from the (partly) later Ubaid culture, has been defined as bilaterality or axial symmetry (von Wickede 1986, 30). In general, however, Halaf and Hajji Muhammad-style painted pottery seem to constitute two responses to the initial impulse likely to have emanated from the Samarra culture style (von Wickede 1986, 31– 32). The Halaf pots were fired at a temperature not much higher than 950 degrees centigrade (ibid. 8) and the potters used technically advanced two-compartment verticalupdraught kilns of which the first safely identified examples may date to this period of time (Alizadeh 1985), though an earlier dating is not excluded (Yarimtepe I, see p. 19). Similar characteristics and a matching cultural homogeneity have been asserted at least for some regional groupings of Ubaid culture pottery (Wright and Pollock 1986, 324f.; on Ubaid pottery see also Wilkinson et al. 1996, esp. pp. 29–40). Ubaid culture potters gradually acquired a higher degree of professional skill so that by Ubaid 4

Figure 4.16 A Chalcolithic painted bowl. Halaf culture, the site of Tell Arpachiyah (after von Wickede 1986, 21, Fig. 22)

The chalcolithic 79

Figure 4.17 A Chalcolithic painted bowl. Halaf culture, the site of Tell Arpachiyah (after von Wickede 1986, 23, Fig. 31)

Figure 4.18 A Chalcolithic painted bowl. Halaf culture, the site of Chagar Bazar (after von Wickede 1986, 22, Fig. 29)

times they were able to fire their products at temperatures between 1,050 and 1,200 degrees centigrade (Tell Awayli, see p. 54). A. von Wickede (1986, 30) has observed that the main principle underlying Ubaid culture ornamentation is different from that of the Halaf sphere and has defined it as ‘Gleitspiegelung’ (roughly ‘mirror image’). Ubaid culture potters were the first to turn out their products en masse. Of the 4 m thick sherd deposit that may be termed the ‘Great sherd dump’ at Ur, the lowermost 2.5 m represent