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

Changes appear in the pottery repertoire of the late levels of Arslantepe VII, which, although registered by only a handful of fragments of new wares, are very significant in foreshadowing later developments, in Period VIA. They are represented by burnished ware and a fine, wheelmade grit-tempered fabric found scattered among the predominantly Chaff-Faced Ware of the temple and multiroomed complex.33 Burnished pottery amounts to less than 2% of the total ceramic assemblage, and can be best distinguished on the basis of color into three group: Redblack, monochrome (red through gray to brown), and black. Red-black ware also points to a controlled firing technique that allowed potters to achieve a scheme of contrasting colors—black on the outside and red on the inside for closed forms such as jars, and the reverse for open forms like bowls. Significantly, these burnished wares were found in the very latest stages of this phase, constructed immediately before the temple complex of VIA, and were not recovered from the columned building. They point to new cultural influences emanating from eastern Anatolia and Trans-Caucasus, where communities of farmers and pastoralists, bearing none of the social or political complexity found along the Euphrates corridor, began to make their presence felt in the Malatya region around 3500 BC. We will discuss these societies later on.

Late Chalcolithic 4 (LC 4): 3450–3250 BC

Following the local Late Chacolithic Hacınebi A settlement, the community began to gravitate towards southern influences. This new settlement, Hacınebi B, shows a mixture of local traits and elements associated with the initial spread of Uruk tradition from the south. At Hacınebi colonists formed a minority and were located in the northeast corner of the B2 settlement, which regrettably was badly disturbed by modern pits. The absence of fortifications, weapons, or violent destructions suggests that Mesopotamians and Anatolians lived in relative harmony for several centuries, estimated to be between 300 and 500 years.34 Moreover, there is no indication that the Uruk settlers controlled the Hacınebi community either economically or politically.

Only context and a holistic interpretation of the artefactual evidence can distinguish between a foreign enclave and a site that displays exotic influence through the importation or emulation of foreign goods. In the case of Hacınebi, two different patterns of behavior are apparent when the overall assemblage is compared and contrasted. The division in ceramics and their localization in different parts of the site catch the eye first. The mercantile quarter has yielded a full assemblage of mostly “Middle Uruk” ceramics, including the predominant grit-tempered, bevelled-rim bowl (Figure 5.3). This differs from the largely chaff-tempered Amuq F repertoire found across the rest of the site.35 Also, many Uruk ceramics—but none of the local Amuq F vessels—bear dribbles of bitumen, reflecting the distinctly Mesopotamian practice of coating certain containers. Significantly, the bitumen from Hacınebi matches the chemical composition of sources in southern Mesopotamia and in the Deh Luran plain, suggesting bitumen was imported to southeast Anatolia. Not only were the ceramic forms between the two areas different, but functional variations are apparent—the Anatolian vessels are typically domestic and

153

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

were used for food storage, preparation, and serving, whereas the overwhelming amount of bevelled-rim bowls (90%) in the Mesopotamian quarter suggest the importance of specialized activities.

These two groups also differed in their culinary practices. The Mesopotamians preferred sheep and goat, and only occasionally ate beef and pork, whereas the Anatolians relished all four types of meat equally. Moreover, the way meat was butchered and the modes of food preparation differed between those living in the enclave and the rest of the inhabitants (Figure 5.3).36 The chipped stone industry is less differentiated, although Canaanean blades and simple blades associated with the Uruk assemblage are smaller. In this context, the discovery of two wellbaked clay sickles, though curious, is nonetheless telling of a practice that is characteristic of alluvial plains of southern Mesopotamian where stone is sparse.37 Finally, the administrative technology of business was different. The Anatolians at Hacınebi authenticated accounting transactions with north Mesopotamian square or round stamp seals that feature lions and caprids. They used these seals to impress clay sealings attached to cloth sacks, wooden boxes, bundles of matting, and leather bags. Uruk merchants, by way of contrast, employed a south Mesopotamian system of recordkeeping, involving cylinder seals and other devices. The repetitive impressions of processions of animals or human figures left by these seals were found on a different range of items, including a sealed clay ball containing tokens, a clay tablet, and jar sealings and stoppers.

Late Chalcolithic 5 (LC 5): 3250–3000/2950 BC

The last phase of the Late Chalcolithic is well represented both north (Arslantepe) and south (Hassek Höyük) of the Taurus Mountains. Hassek Höyük measures about 1.5 hectares in area and is one of several sites along the Euphrates that exhibit Uruk material. Excavations revealed a fortified settlement (Level 5), roughly oval in shape, dominated by a pair of compartmentalized buildings of the “Mittelsaal” type similar to those found further south at Habuba Kabira-süd (Figure 5.4: 1). The compound also included grain storage facilities and work areas. Although the ceramic assemblage at Hassek reveals a strong presence of types of Uruk origin such as bevelled-rim bowls, spouted jars, and four-lugged jars, the local chaff-tempered ceramics are equally well represented (Figure 5.5).

During the last third of the fourth millennium BC, Arslantepe (Period VIA) was drawn inexorably into the Late Uruk Mesopotamian exchange network. Excavations have uncovered a complex of public buildings (I–IV), termed a “palace,” clearly evident in the largest exposure on the southwestern slope (Figure 5.6). Not necessarily the residence for royalty, the complex was rather a centre for various public functions carried out under the auspices of those in power. Two monumental temples, A and B, which share virtually similar ground plans and internal fitments, dominate the complex. Temple A was added after the establishment of the palace, as is seen by its bent axis, attached to a hewn-out section of the earlier structure. Access to Temple

155

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

Figure 5.4 Hassek Höyük: 1 Level 5, the Late Chalcolithic settlement. 2 Level 3, the Early Bronze Age settlement (adapted from Behm-Blancke 1992)

156

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

Figure 5.5 Characteristic types of Uruk and local pottery (Late Chalcolithic 5) from Hassek Höyük (adapted from Helwing 2002)

157

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

Figure 5.6 Arslantepe: 1 An isometric view of the Period VIA (Late Chalcolithic 5) complex (adapted from Frangipane 2007). 2 An aerial view of the same complex (Photo: Robert Ceccacci, courtesy Marcella Frangipane)

158

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

B in Building IV, the earliest building, was indirect, via a monumental gate, an oblong room paved with irregular stones, and a long corridor, flanked by storerooms. Platforms located on either side of the gate appear to have served as guard posts. On the west side of the storerooms is a large courtyard surrounded by further rooms that have been only excavated in part. Sections of other features and buildings, such as a monumental building near Temple B, await full exposure.

Temple B has a bipartite plan, comprising a broad room (the cella) and a narrower, compartmentalized attachment, through whose long eastern wall one entered. At the entrance, a series of red and black paintings that decorated the walls of the vestibule area would have demanded attention. Of these, the liveliest is the stylized image of a male figure with raised arms, standing in front of an altar or table, which is under a canopy (Figure 5.7: 1). Along the corridor and in rooms surrounding the cella itself, the sense of aesthetics was different. Here the walls were textured with concentric lozenge motifs set in relief and applied with a stamp, a mode of decoration that is similar in conception to that found in the Level III temples at Uruk.

The other temple, A, is part of Building I, which together with Building II was constructed on terraced areas and oriented differently to the earlier buildings.38 But in floor plan Temple A mirrors its predecessor. The eastern wall of the cella featured two elevated niches set above a basin and bench that was lime plastered like the other walls. Traces of a red and black painting were found on the east wall, and at its base, on the bench, were the bones of goat, cattle, and a boar, possibly the remains of an offering. A white plastered podium centred the floor of the cella. In an adjoining room, at the entrance to the temple, parts of a wall were decorated with a stamp in a similar manner to Temple B, except, in this case, concentric oval motifs were set in relief and painted in red to contrast with the white background. Sealings do attest to some economic activity in this latest area, but the smaller quantity reflects a declining market. It seems that the writing was on the wall, so to speak, and not long after this public precinct, that so well reflected an early state system, it was abandoned and subsequently burnt.

Evidence of economic activities carefully controlled by an administrative system is found throughout the complex, but the most compelling are the 2000 plus cretulae found in concentrations. Importantly, these impressed lumps of clay were not found strewn haphazardly across the site, instead most were carefully discarded once they had served their purpose, whereas others were found in situ near the objects and commodities they sealed.39 These contextual patterns reflect a clear chain of administrative operations, involving three stages—those that were in use when the building was destroyed, those that had been recently used and placed in the corner of the storeroom, and those that were discarded (neatly in dumps) once they had served their purpose. Careful examination of the back of the cretulae enabled the identification of the objects that were sealed: Sacks, some tied with a wooden peg; pots, with a cloth covering the opening, were plugged at the mouth, or had a cretula attached to the neck or shoulder; baskets and wicker lids; and, perhaps most fascinating of all, a system of door closures, including pin tumbler locks (Figure 5.8). The quantity and sophistication of designs point to a rich tradition of local glyptics.

159

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

Both cylinder and stamp seals were used to impress the lumps of clay. In both cases, stylized animal motifs (goats, lions, and deer), often rampant or interlaced, predominate, with humans making only a rare appearance. Interestingly, very few actual seals have been found. If the variety of seal designs is any indication of the level of sophistication of administration, then it must have been fairly elaborate at Arslantepe, and probably involved a bureaucracy of officials whose duties no doubt included the accountability of transactions.

Precious items were clearly stored in this complex, evidenced by the 21 arsenical copper items, mostly swords (Figure 5.7: 2) and spearheads discussed later, which were found in Room A 113, in Building III. So not only did this palace serve as a place of worship, but the physical linkage of the temples to a series of storerooms demonstrates that the area also functioned as an economic and administrative centre, as in previous centuries.

Despite the remarkable continuity in architecture and administrative aspects between Periods VII and VI, the pottery inventory shows an abrupt change. Four different ware types replace the chaff-faced horizon that dominated the greater part of the fourth millennium BC:

1wheelmade fine or semi-fine buff pottery that is similar to, but not an exact copy of, “Plain Simple Ware” of the Syro-Mesopotamian plain, including Reserved Slip Ware;

2coarse mass-produced bowls, redolent of Period VII, except for a paste that now has grit inclusions;

3Red-Black Burnished Ware that made an appearance in the last centuries of Period VII

4kitchen ware.

This break with tradition should not be viewed as an instance where foreign peoples substituted the local population, but rather as the adoption of new fashions and techniques of manufacture that new lines of communication promoted.

Although the four different ceramics represent new connections with markedly different cultural spheres, including an increase in the interplay with Trans-Caucasus, it is with the highly centralized and developed Late Uruk culture of Mesopotamia that Arslantepe VIA dealt with most. The inventory of shapes found at Arslantepe is now quite standardized, suggesting an even greater degree of administrative control than in the previous period (Figure 5.7: 3). The potter’s mark, once an identifying symbol of individual artisanship, disappears. Even so, potters at Arslantepe catered for local needs, which did not slavishly mimic customs elsewhere. Although we have an abundance of necked jars decorated in reserved slip (south of Taurus) and highstemmed bowls (central Anatolia), the repertoire at Arslantepe is far more restricted when compared with adjoining regions. The end of this administrative complex was swift and violent. Around 3000 BC, Arslantepe VIA burnt completely, leaving behind a thick deposit of charred and mud brick debris that sealed its former splendour.

162