M E TA L S M I T H S A N D M I G R A N T S

LATE CHALCOLITHIC (ca. 4000–3100 BC)

Euphrates area and southeastern Anatolia

The change of tempo in the Late Chalcolithic was most marked along the Euphrates Valley. Significant organizational changes emerged in eastern Anatolia, matched by an upsurge in technological innovations and cultural interaction. But the nature and force of these changes varied throughout the east. From the cultural milieu of the Ubaid horizon, a series of local complex polities emerged that can best described as chiefdoms, while understanding that the development and nature of these societies were by no means uniform, neither did they necessarily lead to the formation of states.2 One was localized in the Upper Euphrates, north of the Taurus Mountains, and bore clear affinities with the Amuq Plain, whereas the other occupied the lowlands south of the mountains (the Jezirah and Karababa regions) and was distinguished by its local Late Chalcolithic that spread across much of north Mesopotamia and Syria (Figure 5.1). Overlapping with both of these is what has been labelled Gawran, a horizon emanating from northern Iraq, and best expressed in Gawra XI-A, with its round house and sequence of temples.3

Figure 5.1 Map showing the main Late Chalcolithic cultural zones in eastern Anatolia and adjacent regions: 1–3 (4000–3500 BC). 4–7 (3500–3000 BC)

145

M E TA L S M I T H S A N D M I G R A N T S

During the second half of the fourth millennium, the area below the Taurus Mountains, the northern reaches of Mesopotamia, experienced intensive contact with southern merchant venturers. Contact between indigenous communities and Uruk Mesopotamia is seen at several places, but is especially well documented at Hacınebi. At Hassek Höyük we have an actual colony of Late Uruk type, which raises a concept of colonization that will concern us shortly. Repercussions of this mercantile activity were felt north of the mountain range too, especially in the Malatya and Elazıg˘ regions, where local cultures adopted Mesopotamian forms of administration. At Arslantepe (Level VIA), centralized economic activity is reflected in a well-preserved complex that contained many seal impressions (known as cretulae or bullae)4 and wheelmade pottery. Emerging connections with different cultural environments farther east, most notably with Trans-Caucasus, are also clearly evident by the presence of handmade, red-and-black burnished pottery. The rugged highlands northeast of the Taurus, contrariwise, developed its own character, one that drew on the Trans-Caucasian experience.

The Late Chalcolithic period in Anatolia has been dominated by studies on the phenomenon referred to as the Uruk expansion. This occurrence is defined by the dispersal of a distinctive inventory of material culture, including ceramics, iconographic motifs, architecture, and terracotta wall cones, and administrative procedures (attested by seals and sealings, and proto-cuneiform tablets). These are linked with southern Mesopotamia, especially at the site of Uruk-Warka, to distant lands such as the Upper Euphrates and Upper Tigris regions in Turkey, northern Syria, western Iran, and Egypt. Over the last decade or so, this episode of history has once again gripped archaeologists with a fervor that is no less a phenomenon than the period itself. A generation of new fieldwork has seen an outpouring of literature that has not only harnessed the evidence, but also grappled with various conceptual frameworks.5 Key among these is the view, eloquently espoused by Guillermo Algaze in 1993,6 that the Mesopotamian heartland, the southern alluvium investigated by Robert Adams in his pioneering surveys, deeply affected others regions around its periphery. Algaze argues that regions such as the Middle Euphrates in Syria and the Taurus intermontane zone beyond, which formed part of

Greater Mesopotamia, started to experience dramatic shifts in social, political, and economic organization that were prompted by developments on the alluvium.

These ideas drew on the results of a host of new investigations. Even though located it was on the very limits of the Uruk world, near Malatya in the Upper Euphrates drainage basin, Arslantepe stands pre-eminent for two reasons. First, the exemplary work carried out by the Italians since 1961 has shed enormous light on an important complex settlement. The methodical excavations that emphasiz broad horizontal exposures have taken full advantage of this well-preserved site. Second, this project constitutes without a doubt some of the best work currently being carried out on an early state administrative center in southwest Asia. It has shown that the formation of early state systems was not limited to Upper and Lower Mesopotamia, but included parts of highland eastern Anatolia along the Euphrates, which developed along its own trajectory.

In the same year that Algaze published his seminal work, which explained the dynamics of an

146

M E TA L S M I T H S A N D M I G R A N T S

expanding Uruk world as viewed from the alluvium, Frangipane offered a perspective from the highlands and reminded us that the pulse of complexity did not beat only in the plains.7 She indicated that complex social structures emerged in the Syro-Anatolian region well before contact with the Mesopotamian Uruk culture. Indeed, the picture now emerging is one of a mosaic of interacting polities (rather than a single centre) that sprang up in Greater Mesopotamia from the late fifth millennium BC, each of which reacted differently to the Uruk impact—some embraced it, others had no choice but to accept it, whereas others again filtered those elements which they saw as useful. As we shall see, Arslantepe’s distinctiveness lies in its highland location (“peripheral” to the Uruk heartlands) and the nature of its administrative complex, which is based around contiguous temples.

Although the chronology of the fourth millennium BC in southwest Asia remains loose in parts, comprehensive analyses of radiocarbon determinations from across Greater Mesopotamia support the view that the Uruk expansion was not short lived (3300–3100 BC), as was once thought.8 In fact, it appears to have extended over the Middle and Late Uruk periods in the south, and lasted from about 3800 to 3100 BC.9 The appearance of typical south Mesopotamian Middle Uruk ceramic forms such as the ubiquitous bevelled-rim bowls at Hacınebi B2 suggest that this influence was felt in southeastern Turkey just before 3600 BC.

Clearly, the term Uruk is not always apt when referring to indigenous communities that occupied lands surrounding the southern alluvium of Mesopotamia. A more overarching terminology is required. Frangipane proposed three Late Chalcolithic phases plus a Late Uruk period for the Syro-Anatolian and Upper Mesopotamian regions, a proposal largely followed by Helwing.10 The latest pronouncement stems from the Sante Fe conference on the Uruk world, which appears to have a broad consensus and is used here. Five stages of the Late Chalcolithic (LC 1–5) are identified, stretching from 4200 BC to 3100 BC.11 These are roughly equivalent to the Early, Early Middle, Late Middle, and Late Uruk sequences of southern Mesopotamia.

Before we turn to the evidence, let us continue with a few more conceptual issues. While the sway southern Mesopotamia had on surrounding regions well outside its immediate boundaries has been well known for some time, it is the nature of this expansion as well as the relationship between the Uruk intruders and the local populations that have prompted the greatest discussions. Were these intrusive settlements true colonies, or were they enclaves attached to host communities? Is the material assemblage implanted and pure, or does it simply display influences from the south (“Uruk like”)? Did the southern settlers mix with the indigenous community, or did they keep to themselves, resolutely pursuing their business? These and other questions have focused attention on the social transformations and dynamics that occurred when Uruk settlers met indigenous societies. More importantly, they highlight the difficulties of identifying this cultural contact, because unlike the recognition of the Old Assyrian commercial enclaves of second millennium BC Anatolia, our understanding of the Uruk expansion relies on archaeology alone.

Several factors need to be considered in any attempt to discern the degree of Uruk influence in the Taurus region:

147

M E TA L S M I T H S A N D M I G R A N T S

•distance between the Mesopotamian heartland and the eastern Anatolian sites they affected;

•the level of social and political complexity of the Anatolian communities in whose regions the Mesopotamians settled;

•relative organizational structures—the intrusive colonial network versus the established indigenous systems;

•the nature and intensity of trade between settlers and host communities—balanced or one sided;

•power interchanges between southern cities and their colonies, and, in turn, between the colonies and host societies;

•intermarriage between the immigrant groups and local populations.12

Three types of Uruk settlement have been detected outside the homeland by applying these criteria to archaeological evidence.13 First is the colony, which Stein aptly defines as:

[A]n implanted settlement established by one society in either uninhabited territory or the territory of another society. The implanted settlement is established for long-term residence and both spatially and socially distinguishable from the communities of the host society. The settlement at least starts off with a distinct formal corporate identity as a community with cultural/ritual, economic, military, or political ties to its homeland, but the homeland need not politically dominate the implanted settlement.14

Implicit in this overarching definition is the view that only state-level societies establish colonies, which, in terms of Uruk settlements, were small in size compared to their parent cities on the alluvium. While acknowledging that a formal relationship exists between colonies and their homeland states, it also allows for a certain degree of flexibility—colonies need not be totally prevailed on by their parent states, neither do colonies themselves necessarily dictate the organizational activities of their host societies. These stand alone Uruk sites have been interpreted as

“stations” that acted as intermediaries (the main nodes of communication) between sites in the Mesopotamian periphery and city-states of the alluvium. They are distinguished from contemporary local settlements by their niched façade temples, walls embedded with ceramic cones forming colorful geometric patterns, tripartite houses with a middle hall, and a complete repertoire of Uruk pottery. Hassek Höyük, near Samsat in southeastern Turkey, is generally seen as an example of a small Uruk station, although Helwing would prefer to describe it as a Syro-Anatolian site that gradually acquired Uruk traits.15

The second type of Uruk settlement is an enclave—a foreign quarter of traders established within a pre-existing local site, or at its edge, and with the agreement of the host community.

The nature of these settlements has been compared to the later and better known Old Assyrian karum, situated in central Anatolia, where foreigners and locals coexisted to engage in trade. Once thought to have been founded only in the highlands, deep within the mountains of the Taurus and Zagros, Uruk enclaves have now been discovered on the plain, most notably at

148