Petr Charvát - Mesopotamia Before History (2008, Routledge)
.pdf
The chalcolithic 91
proliferating around major centres. A similar conclusion has been formulated recently for the Balikh valley sites of Syria (Weiss 1991, 690–691—Khirbet esh-Shenef as against Tell Sabi Abyad; see also Akkermans and Le Miere 1992, 21), and processes of this kind, especially the burgeoning of minor sites, have been documented around Tepe Yahya (Damerow, Englund and Lamberg-Karlovsky 1989, viii). The absence of ashy layers applies to Halaf culture sites but not to the south-east Ubaid settlements (Wright and Pollock 1986, 319f.). How far this incipient lowland sedentarization, which was likely to have inhibited the movement of minor settlements that clustered around the centres and to have thus disrupted the traditional transhumance patterns,
Figure 4.29 A Chalcolithic painted bowl. Early Ubaid culture, the site of Eridu, layer VIII (after Safar, Mustafa and Lloyd 1981, 156 and 179, Fig. 82:1)
Mesopotamia before history 92
was influenced by the fact that the well-watered and larger valley bottoms, at least in the Zagros ranges, were by then inhabited by sedentary populations, remains an open question (Smith-Young 1983). As has already been noted, a parallel situation has been observed in early India (Fairservis 1991, esp. pp. 110–111), where the original unity of site pairs in the mountains and plains, likely to have been linked by transhumance, ultimately broke up and separate mountain and plain communities emerged.
Figure 4.30 A Chalcolithic painted bowl. Early Ubaid culture, the site of Eridu, layer VIII (after Safar, Mustafa and Lloyd 1981, 156 and 179, Fig. 82:2)
The chalcolithic 93
Sedentarization leads to marked population growth (Maisels 1990, 121–130; Vencl 1991, 225 with ref.) and, in fact, the contemporary rise of population density in late Neolithic Palestine (Moore 1983, 100) has been explained with reference to economic intensification. Sedentarization of major centres might have resulted in more economic specialization of the short-term settlements. Such situations and series of ‘service villages’ are not unknown even in fully historic Sumer where such a cluster could exist around Nippur in Ur III times (Owen 1981, 46). Though Chalcolithic settlement excavations indicating a low degree of subsistence-gaining differentiation such as Tell Uqair (Lloyd and Safar 1943, I49f.), Ras al-’Amiya (Stronach 1982, 37–38) or Ubaid culture Yarimtepe III (Merpert and Munchaev 1982; Yoffee and Clark 1993, 225–240) do exist, other evidence tends to bear out the above-mentioned suggestion concerning spatial segregation of specialized activities. The Tell Abada ‘communal sheepfold’ (Jasim 1989, esp. pp. 83–85), suggestive of a village facility for feeding and watering cattle and thus of at least an elementary degree of economic specialization, has already been mentioned. The descriptions of site series implying regional specialization in animal husbandry (Oates 1980, 308) or of sites like Shams ed-Din Tannira in Syria with emphasis on a particular economic activity such as hunting (Azoury and Bergman 1980; on the site in general see Azoury et al. 1980–1982) have already been given. Another aspect is represented by those Chalcolithic sites which offer evidence for craft activities carried out on a large scale such as pottery production documented by the Ubaid culture component of the ‘Great Sherd Dump’ at Ur (Woolley 1955, 28) or confined to a particular sector of the site which may even be physically enclosed. Developments exemplified at Tepe Gawra XVI, XVA and XV by the clear bipolarity of the residential and production-cum-storage quarters (e.g. Forest 1983a, Pls 6–8) are paralleled at the Jebel Hamrin sites of Tell Hassan (Fiorina 1984, 278, 285, Halaf and Ubaid cultures), Tell Songor B (Fujii 1981, 182–183, pottery kilns enclosed by a contemporary ditch), Tell Abada (Jasim 1989, 87, Fig. 10, layer I, square L 10, a group of kilns enclosed by a wall) and, finally, at Shams ed-Din Tannira itself (ar-Radi and Seeden 1980). An amplification of the argument for professional specialization may be seen in the boatshaped hammer-axes, turning up at Tepe Gawra from layer XIII onwards and present in the contemporary Dum Gar Parchinah and Hakalan cemeteries of Iran (Vanden Berghe 1987, 118). Hammer-axes have been singled out as the oldest truly specialized weapons (Vencl 1979, 663–666, 692) and their presence may indicate social recognition of the warrior status (‘caste’), distinguished by a particular professional symbol executed in imperishable material.
Mesopotamia before history 94
Figure 4.31 Foundations of the vernacular architecture of Mesopotamia were laid in the Neolithic age. Ever since that time the walls of local houses have been built of clay or stone with ceilings of timber. Reed matting, lying on these, was, in its turn, covered by well-trampled layers of clay which sometimes received a protective layer of bitumen.
The chalcolithic 95
Figure 4.32 Chalcolithic painted cups. Late Ubaid culture (fifth-fourth millennium BC), the site of Eridu, cemetery (=layers VII–VI) (after Safar, Mustafa and Lloyd 1981, 160 and 166, Fig. 78:10, 12, 15)
Differentiation and segmentation of Chalcolithic populations, visible in the archaeological record, thus pertain first and foremost to the professional sphere. Traces of social distinctions recoverable through settlement archaeology are less prominent. The
Mesopotamia before history 96
Farukhabad evidence (Wright et al. 1981, 65–66), where minor architecture attracted equid and ovicaprid remains and more substantial struc
Figure 4.33 A Chalcolithic spouted bottle and spouted painted jugs, one with a stirrup handle. Late Ubaid culture, the site of Eridu, cemetery (=layers VII–VI) (after Safar, Mustafa and Lloyd 1981, 160 and 169, Fig. 79:4, 5 and 7)
Figure 4.34 Modern houses with domed roofs of clay, like these photographed in Harran in south-east Turkey, may reflect the external appearance of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic round houses, especially of the Halaf culture tholoi.
The chalcolithic 97
tures gazelle bones and conical cups, while indigenous natural resouces such as flint and bitumenwere omnipresent, has already been cited. Even this case, however, may reveal professional qualifications as gazelle hunting undoubtedly required careful organization and therefore somemanagement skills. The higher frequency of tableware such as cups enhances the role of ostentatious commensality, perhaps with social undertones (a privilege/obligation of the incumbentsof more substantial houses to entertain guests; see Milano 1994). Again, much later textual datagive interesting comparative evidence including such gestures as raising the cup as a sign of allegiance to one’s lord and liege or partaking of food and drink as a part of treaty rituals (OldBabylonia: Charpin 1990, 81, n. 51). In south-east Mesopotamia the perforated stone discs occuronly in urban sites (Wright and Pollock 1986, 321). This could translate a social distinction, themore so as both authors also allude to the fact that the increased frequency of fine beakers andminiature vases on Ubaid culture cemeteries of this region and at Eridu Temple VI may point tosocially relevant situations (ibid. 324).
Be that as it may, no socially relevant distinctions are offered by settlement-site layouts. These tend to be dominated by two types of structures: three-naved houses with annexes consisting of long and narrow rooms which might have evolved into buildings displaying a central longitudinal hall flanked on both longer sides by linear alignments of subsidiary chambers (referred to from now on as central-hall buildings) and by the well-known round houses or tholoi (Figure 4.34) (Breniquet 1996, 80–87). Well-documented excavations have established beyond any reasonable doubt that at least a number of the latter structures sheltered normal settlement activities (Yarimtepe II, see p. 45; Shams edDin Tannira: ar-Radi and Seeden 1980, 115—Area A) or functioned as granaries (Akkermans 1987, 14–15). New excavations have proved that such constructions were known to Ubaid culture populations as well. In addition to the above-mentioned Tell Madhhur III, there is another example from Khanijdal East (Wilkinson and Matthews 1989, 264–265; Wilkinson et al. 1996, esp. p. 44). Constructionally they may represent a response to the hot and dry climate and to the scarcity of usable wood within the steppe and piedmont zones. Some of the tholoi rested on stone foundations and later they were provided with rectangular anterooms, also built on stone basements (Arpachiyah TT 10– 7). In these cases builders of new tholoi constantly erected complete buildings, including new rubble foundations, which must have involved a considerable expenditure of energy. Facilities for communal use, the tradition of which continues from the Neolithic, include pipelines employing terracotta pipes and laid down either for draining the sites or for conveying water to them (in addition to Tepe Gawra XIII, Tell Abada: Jasim 1989, 86– 88; Tell Abu Husaini: Invernizzi 1980, 41; on Near Eastern canalization in general: Hemker 1993). The Neolithic fortification tradition (Tell es-Sawwan) materialized at Arpachiyah (Hijara VII–VI) and at the Anatolian site of Degirmentepe (Mellink 1988, 112). As a Chalcolithic innovation, the building of well-prepared, paved roads leading to
Mesopotamia before history 98
the foci of Halaf settlement is discernible: the Arpachiyah example may soon be accompanied by other finds of this kind (Kharabeh Shattani: Baird 1995, 13–14).
In conclusion to the social dimension of settlement evidence it may be pointed out that while a substantial amount of data confirms Chalcolithic professional specialization, unequivocal evidence on social stratification is missing save for a trend towards ostentatious commensality which may have become a vehicle for the expression of social pretensions on behalf of some community members. The degree of coherence and solidarity of Chalcolithic communities must have remained rather high. In fact, precisely such a social ordering is supposed to suit the economic character of early Mesopotamian agrarian communities (Gibson 1974).
This assessment is fully corroborated by other types of the archaeological record. Analyses of major contemporary cemeteries like those of Eridu and Ur (Pariselle 1985, esp. p. 10; Wright and Pollock 1986, esp. p. 328) and even of newly identified sites like Dum Gar Parchinah and Hakalan of Luristan (Vanden Berghe 1987, esp. pp. 92ff.) have outlined a basically egalitarian social structure (on Halaf mortuary practices see Akkermans 1989b). A major factor reflected by the funerary sphere seems to be the age, as at Eridu (Vértesalji 1984, 27) and at Gawra XVIII–XVI (Akkermans 1989a, 356), where children received grave goods different from those of adults. The Eridu children went to their graves accompanied by whole animal bodies but their fathers and mothers were given joints of fish and animal meat. At Gawra, children wore beads for the grave and adults had pottery. Reflection of age of the deceased in burial customs is believed to indicate essentially egalitarian societies without inheritance of social status (Wright 1978, esp. p. 213). Nevertheless, Lewis Binford, on whose results the above cited conclusion rests, goes on to say that burial of children together with adults does imply ranking and subgroup affiliation. The Eridu and Luristan cemeteries that display this feature may thus show a certain degree of manipulation of mortuary evidence as they clearly depart from the current practice of burying children under house floors (as at Gawra: Akkermans 1989a, esp. pp. 356–363, or the Hamrin sites, see p. 91). Here we may note the conclusion that the existence of cemeteries implies sedentarism (Bruce Dickson 1990, 195–196) and that in some instances they may play the role of a vehicle of expression of corporate rights to the territory on which the particular community burying their dead there resides (Charvát 1990, 459 with ref., 461–462; Talalay 1991, esp. pp. 48–49). The social image sought by the manipulation of the mortuary sphere at the Eridu and Luristan cemeteries stands out clearly in comparison with the Gawra sequence as perceived from the viewpoint of social history. As has been noted above, the innovations of Gawra XIII– XII include a visible expansion of the geographical range of natural resources tapped (new obsidian types, introduction of lapis lazuli), growth of the overall volume of manufactured goods and introduction of new techniques (flint borers from layer XII). While some of these developments facilitated the daily toil (grindstones), others, perhaps the majority, had clearly no other
The chalcolithic 99
Figure 4.35 A Chalcolithic female statuette. Halaf culture, the site of Yarimtepe III (after Yoffee and Clark 1993, 202, Fig. 9:38:2)
Figure 4.36 Chalcolithic animal figurines. Halaf culture, the site of Yarimtepe III (after Yoffee and Clark 1993, 204, Fig. 9:42:2–3)
Mesopotamia before history 100
purpose but ostentatious display (beads, pendants, stamped goblets). The new precious materials were apparently diffused throughout the site without attachment to particular contexts, structures or persons and the conclusion that they were accessible to all community members thus seems legitimate. Indeed, the introduction of flint borers in layer XII might have followed the increased demand for bored pendants; in such a case the motivation for this undoubtedly practical improvement must have emanated not from economic considerations but from the symbolic and representation sphere. This assumption of an essentially egalitarian comprehension of social groupings finds corroborative support not only in the mortuary sphere but also in the probably reciprocal character of socially engineered exchange practices (on the sealings, see Charvát 1988a). As far as social distinctions were operative in the Chalcolithic, they probably pertained to whole human groups which might have assumed different positions vis-à-vis one another in a system built on ranking complete (kin?) aggregates. The Gawra evidence shows us one of the component communities of Chalcolithic Mesopotamia, essentially egalitarian in their internal structure. On the other hand, the Eridu and Luristan cemeteries translate into archaeological terms the aspirations of supralocal groupings of such communities, expressing ranking and subgroup affiliation of their component groups together with corporate rights to their territories.
The cemetery evidence thus points to the existence of essentially egalitarian communities forming supralocal units within which the individual component groups may have assumed various hierarchical positions and in which the corporate rights over the territories occupied by them were vested. These supralocal associations clearly varied in size, as is shown especially by the comparison with some adjacent cemetery sites. Though the grave goods of the deceased buried at Susa, Iran (Hole 1983) differed in no substantial manner from those of other burial sites, the sheer size of the site (some 2,000 interments) surpasses anything known from contemporary Mesopotamian cemeteries. The particular supralocal groupings within which the individual communities occupied positions defined by a preconceived hierarchy (on various types of such bodies including ramages and/or conical clans see Maisels 1987, 336–337; Thomas 1987, 408) could thus build ‘catchment areas’ of greatly varying extent.