A glance at the Early Trans-Caucasian culture through its pastoral-nomadic component: A case study...

A GLANCE AT THE EARLY TRANS-CAUCASIANCULTURE THROUGH ITS NOMADIC COMPONENT

Ron Shimelmitz

Abstract

It has long been claimed that the Early Trans-Caucasian culture had a pastoral-nomadic component. I will argue that this component was an integral part of theculture and will endeavour to evaluate the implications of the existence of such acomponent. The ability of groups practicing pastoral-nomadism to integrate into'local' communities will be presented as the main factor affecting their regionaldispersion and the disintegration of this culture at the end of the Early Bronze Age.

INTRODUCTION

The Early Trans-Caucasian (ETC) culture emerged in Georgia, Armenia,Azerbeidjan, and Northeastern Anatolia in the second half of the fourth millenniumBCE. During the course of the third millennium BCE, it spread to the middleEuphrates basin, the Orontes Valley and northern Israel. This culture consisted ofvarious regional groups.' However, as a result of the homogeneity observed in thecharacteristics of the groups' material culture, in this paper they will be referred to asa single entity. Some scholars have ascribed a pastoral-nomadic nature to this culture(e.g., Burney 1958, 1971; Whallon and Kantman 1969), yet the archaeological dataimplies that only some of the ETC groups may have practiced pastoral-nomadism.Indeed, the notion that the ETC culture was a pastoral-nomadic entity is refuted byCribb, who prefers to view it as a culture with a 'fluctuating nomadic component'(1991:221). This view is shared by Sagona (1993), according to whom the pastoralelement was only part of a larger picture that may have included a division oflabour between shepherds and farmers in the same family, as well as in the samecommunity.

Nevertheless, I will argue that pastoral-nomadism was an integral part of thesocial structure of this culture. In order to strengthen this claim, I will demonstrate

In the archaeological literature this culture is referred to under different names based on thegeographic location and pottery groups: Kura Arax culture in the Trans-Caucasian region.Karaz Ware in Northeast Anatolia, Dark Burnished Ware in Eastern Anatolia (the EuphratesValley), Red-Black Burnished Ware in the Amuq and Khirbet Kerak Ware in the southernLevant (Burney 1958; Braidwood and Braidwood 1960; Hennessey 1967; Burney and Lang1971; Sagona 1984; Esse 1991).

204

Shimelmitz: Early Trans-Caucasian Culture Through its Nomadic Component

that the importance of pastoral-nomadism is reflected by the andirons2 and thehorseshoe-shaped hearths attributed to the ETC culture. The discussion will focuson Eastern Anatolia, but it is also relevant for other parts of the Near East where theETC culture appeared.

I will argue that the existence of such a pastoral-nomadic component may explaincertain problematic aspects in the research into the ETC culture. The prime factorto be discussed is the ability of the ETC people, and those who practiced pastoral-nomadism in particular, to integrate into the settlement pattern in order to create asystem of cooperation. I will suggest that this ability affected the dispersion of theETC culture in Eastern Anatolia, as well as in the ancient Near East as a whole.

At the end of the third millennium BCE the appearance of additional pastoral-nomadic or semi-nomadic groups of different ethno-cultural affiliations in parts ofthe Near East may have affected the pattern of seasonal movement of the ETC groups.In other words, this and perhaps additional reasons may have somehow changed theETC culture so that some if not most of its material culture characteristics, especiallythose relating to nomadism, ceased to exist. It may well be that the appearance ofrival pastoral groups in the Near Eastern scene could have undermined the centuries-long economic co-existence of the ETC groups with local communities.

THE EXTENT OF PASTORALISM IN THE ETC CULTURE

The archaeological record contains several indications pointing to pastoral-nomadism as one of the aspects of this culture. Houses built of wattle and daub,which indicate impermanent dwelling, constitute the main evidence (Burneyand Lang 1971; Sagona 1993; Hopkins 1996). Such houses were discovered atNor~untepe (Hauptmann 1979), Ta~kun Mevkii (Helms 1971; Sagona 1994),Degirmentepe (Dum 1979:69-75), Sos H6yiik (Sagona et al. 1996; 1997), andArslantepe (Frangipane and Palmieri 1983). Other transient dwellings were foundin Buyuktepe H6yiik (Sagona et al. 1992; 1993) and Sos H6yiik (the earliest level)(Sagona et al. 1996; 1997) (Fig. 1).

Unfortunately, since intensive animal husbandry has been identified in most ofthe settlements at that time in Eastern Anatolia, the composition of the fauna is notof much use in identifying the pastoral component. In addition, loom weights andspindle whorls (e.g., Ko~ay 1976:125; Sagona et al. 1995), which attest to wool-based textile production, do not always indicate the sedentary or nomadic nature ofthe communities in question.

Andirons are ceramic vessels that are assumed to have been used as installations on whichcooking-pots were placed over the hearth (Diamant and Rutter 1969). This is attested to byfire marks on some of these vessels (e.g., Dum 1979:77).

205

TEL AVIV 30 (2003)

•Ebla .

Fig. 1. Map of Eastern Anatolia with mention sites in the text (based on map from Yakar 2000:20, map 3).

The appearance of animal enclosures was also used in an attempt to identifypastoral-nomadism (Chang and Koster 1986). However, since animal enclosureswere no doubt used by a variety of inhabitants, this aspect should be treatedcautiously. Structures identified as enclosures were found in Nor~untepe HorizonsXVII-XVIII (Hopkins 1996:24), Korucutepe Phase C (van Loon 1978:13, Pl. 11)and Han Ibrahim ~ah Level VI (Ertem 1982). It should be noted that the former twoare connected to ETC architecture and context, while the nature of the enclosure atHan Ibrahim ~ah is less clear.

The andirons also playa part in the argument for a nomadic life-style (Cribb1991:220; Hopkins 1996:24),3 Some of the andirons have a handle attached totheir back, which Diamant and Rutter (1969) have reconstructed as a carrierhandle. The great portability of the ceramic assemblage (the widespread use of

Cribb strengthens this claim with an example of a mobile fireplace-a metal tripod usedamong nomads of present day Anatolia (Cribb 1991:220).

206


various handles and lugs) further supports the assumption of a nomadic life-style(Cribb 1991:220).

The relatively small amount of data regarding pastoral activity may be anoutcome of the difficulties encountered by the archaeology of pastoralism(Chang and Koster 1986; Cribb 1991). However, the problem is not necessarilyonly one of preservation and paucity of artefacts left in pastoral sites. It seems,rather, that the minute amount of data reinforces Cribb's argument of a societywith nomadic fluctuation, and not one that is exclusively nomadic. Furthermore,the appearance of wattle and daub buildings alongside stone and mud buildingssharing the same characteristics (as will be discussed below) best exemplifiesthe existence of an ETC pastoral-nomadic component alongside ETC permanentsettlers. Herein lies the main evidence that only a part of the ETC peoplepracticed pastoral-nomadism.

ANDIRONS AND HORSESHOE HEARTHS AS A REFLECTION OFNOMADIC LIFE-STYLE

Of the various portable hearths found in the ETC ceramic assemblage, andironsare the most prominent. In this section, I will attempt to demonstrate how theandirons and some ofthe horseshoe hearths may be a reflection ofthe ETC pastoral-nomadic life-style. In order to understand the importance of the portable hearthsone must first tum to the permanent hearths, whose ritual aspects have long beendiscussed (e.g., Kelly-Buccellati 1979:422; Yakar 1985:279). In Pulur (LevelX) three permanent anthropomorphic hearths shaped in the form of a horseshoe(Fig. 2) were found in rooms that Ko~ay suggested were used as shrines (Ko~ay 1976:134-136, 145-146). Furthermore, at Korucutepe Phase E, a building containing afire installation consisting of three andirons was uncovered (Fig. 3). Several objectswere found among the three andirons, and Van Loon has suggested that these arefoundation deposits (van Loon 1978:21). Although the hearths from the two sites arequite different, some similarity is evident. Draining channels and low platforms werefound near the installations at both sites. In addition, upon abandonment, Room 83at Pulur and the building at Korucutepe were intentionally filled with soil (Ko~ay1976:134-136, 145-146; van Loon 1978:21), implying that they may have serveda sacred function. At Nor~untepe, a hearth consisting of three andirons surroundedby figurines and objects reconstructed as models of wheels was uncovered in a roomthat had been painted red (Yakar 1985:292). Although the above features do notnecessarily point to the existence of 'shrines', they do indicate that ritual activitytook place in these rooms.

Burney (1996:12) and Ko~ay (1976:148) have emphasized the existence of a

207

TEL AVIV 30 (2003)

Fig. 2. An anthropomorphic hearth from Pulur (after Ko~ay 1976:P1.38).

connection between hearths and the family. The importance of the hearth in the ETCculture can be stated as follows: 'The hearth represents fertility, economy and goodfortune and has always been looked upon as a source of strength .... The hearth isgenerally a symbol [my emphasis] of the house' (Ko~ay 1976:148).4

The essence of the relationship between the hearth and the household in Indo-European cultures has been well presented by Della Volpe (1990;1992). Burney(1996: 11-12) has emphasized the relevance of Della Volpe's study to the researchof the ETC culture. In Indo-European cultures the hearth represents the core of thehousehold and is used for various domestic functions, including that of an 'altar'.While a household may have several hearths, it is the central one that represents thefamily, and the fire in it bums continuously. Hearths were raised at the founding ofa family by marriage and extinguished only upon the death of that family. A furtherindication of the powerful bond between the family and the hearth can be found insome languages in which the same word is used for both terms (Della Volpe 1992:86) as in the Turkish, ocak.

The connection between the andirons and the horseshoe hearths may be seen in the

Ko~ay, translating Omek.

208


Fig. 3. Installation composed of three large andirons from Korucutepe (after van Loon 1978:PI. 270).

similarity in their shapes (horseshoe), as well as in the symbols that were embeddedin them (Takaoglu 2000). A good example ofthis is the andiron from Tabara El Akrad(Hood 1951: Fig. 9) (Fig. 4). The rich symbolism in some of the andirons and hearthssuggests a fertility-related cult that plays a central role in the family structure. Forexample, Ko~ay describes the anthropomorphic horseshoe-shaped hearths as sittingwomen, while the inclusion of two small figures in the arm-like protrusions of thehorseshoe hearth represent gods alongside a mother-goddess (Ko~ay 1976:136,145,PI. 38). However, one may also see this as a symbol of fertility without identifyingthe individual figures, as in the analogy of a mother and her children, as perceivedby van Loon regarding the composite hearth from Korucutepe: He writes: 'It is hardto escape the impression that some human-like embracing quality was felt even inthese late successors to the anthropomorphic andirons, especially where they occurin triads, as in the case of 70-546 (the smallest "andiron" out of the triplicate fromlayer C) and its "parents" (van Loon 1978:98).

In addition to female motifs, there are male motifs as well (e.g., Kelly-Buccellati1979-422). A number of andirons include phallic elements. These were found mostlyin the Erzurum region at sites such as Sos Hayuk (Sagona et al. 1997: Fig. 13:

209

TEL AVIV 30 (2003)

Fig. 4. Andiron from Tabara elAkrad (after Hood 1951:Fig. 9).

1), Btiytiktepe Hoytik (Sagona et al. 1993: Fig. 2: 1), Gtizelova (Ko~ay and Vary1967:Lev LX-LXIII) and Pulur (Erzurum) (Ko~ay and Vary 1964:Lev. XXI)(Fig. 5).

I suggest that andirons, which are mobile installations placed on hearths, werethe only way in which the ETC pastoral-nomadic component could maintain theconcept of the hearth as representing the household. Due to their nomadic life-stylethey could not always maintain a permanent hearth, certainly not one that constantlyburned. Thus, this custom was sustained by using a mobile hearth (which was, ofcourse, extinguished again and again, but which nevertheless retained a certaincontinuity).

Another aspect of the andirons and the horseshoe hearths is the occasionalappearance of triads. This is exemplified by the installations composed of threehorseshoe hearths from Korucutepe and Nor~untepe and by the motif of threemolded images that appears on some andirons and horseshoe hearths (e.g., Figs.2-4). In the ancient Near East the number three had several symbolic meanings,two of which were completeness and family (mother, father and children, aswell as generations) (Cooper 1982: 114). The concentric groups of hearths fromKorucutepe and Nor~untepe may attest to the existence of a central hearth thatbrought together a number of nuclear families (a number of hearths) to create oneextended family. Since it is assumed that family unity was important for the ETCcommunities that consisted of sedentary and nomadic components, it is possiblethat the permanent anthropomorphic hearths might actually have been a symbolicconnection between the two. The presence of the three anthropomorphic hearths atPulur at the same level in different rooms (Nos. 79-80, 83: Ko~ay 1976: 133-137)seems to strengthen this suggestion. These rooms are connected to domesticactivities and their location at the site does not seem to have served a largecommunity. Rather it is more likely that they were established for the benefit ofextended families.

In short, the similarity between the permanent horseshoe hearths and the

210


andirons indicates that they share a similar meaning. I have argued that the pattern ofsimilarity can reflect a powerful bond between the two segments of the ETC culture:the sedentary elements and the varying sub-groups practicing pastoral-nomadism.5

Furthermore, the rich symbolism that the horseshoe hearths and the andirons sharemight not only indicate the inseparable bond between the two segments but also theimportance of it to the culture as a whole.

THE INTEGRATION OF THE ETC CULTURE IN THE REGIONALSETTLEMENT PATTERN

The fluctuation between nomadism and settled life among commumtIes IIIthe ETC culture urges us to study the relationship between the pastoral-nomadicelement and the urban space. The urban space was primarily occupied by the'local,6 inhabitants of Eastern Anatolia (a culture which had developed from the lateChalcolithic). However, some of the ETC people also inhabited this urban space. Inthis section I will try to present the essence of this relationship.

The ethnographic study of the Y6riik (Anatolian pastoral-nomad society)demonstrates the close connection between pastoral-nomad and farmingcommunities. Along the Y6riik's travel route are several agricultural settlements inwhich some of the Y6riik people live on a permanent basis. The grazing groundson the Y6riik's route are controlled by the local settlement, and permission to grazein the vicinities of these settlements is granted only by the heads of the villages. Inexchange, the Y6riik pay with money or gifts-mostly dairy products (Bates 1973).Shepherds usually take advantage of the periods of 'rest' of the agricultural fields,especially during the summer. During these periods, nomads sometimes dwell withinthe settlements themselves (Yakar 2000:202-204). Thus, one sees cooperationbetween pastoral-nomads and agricultural settlers, with shepherds using areas notbeing used for agriculture, or fields during the periods of reprieve from agriculturalgrowth, as grazing grounds (Bates 1973).

The archaeological record ofthe third millennium BCE in Eastern Anatolia seemsto reflect a similar picture. Some of the ETC people lived in permanent settlementsalongside the 'local' inhabitants of Eastern Anatolia, while others lived in separatesettlements. Although the ETC ceramic distribution might help to indicate such a

The appearance of andirons in the permanent sites might be a result of changes in thecomposition of the pastoral component-different segments practicing pastoralism at differenttimes.The use of the term 'local' is problematic since according to the archaeological record theETC culture existed alongside the 'local' culture during the entire third millennium BCE.Nevertheless, I use this term in order to prevent a complicated terminology.

211

TEL AVIV 30 (2003)

pattern, it is difficult to differentiate between the ETC people and the 'local' peoplewho used some of the same pottery.7 The wattle and daub architecture and theandirons thus seem to be the most appropriate features for the identification ofthe ETC people (e.g., Sagona 1993; Hopkins 1995:22).

Due to its foreign nature in comparison to the local buildings, Sagona seesthe wattle and daub buildings as strong evidence for ETC presence (Sagona1994:5).8 The ETC structures are characterized by their building technology aswell by their inner spatial layout, the main features being a hearth in the centreof the room, a bench in the posterior area and in many cases an annex at thefront (Sagona 1993). With the help of these wattle and daub buildings and otherpermanent houses with a similar plan we can discern two types of ETC settlementsin Eastern Anatolia: The first are the ETC permanent settlements, mostly in theform of settled groups of ETC people in some of the 'locals' settlements. Thesecond are the temporary settlements, some of which were isolated campsitesand others temporary settlements within the confines of permanent settlements.

Although seasonal settlements offer a limited archaeological record, a fewETC campsites are known from Eastern Anatolia: Arslantepe periods VIB2(Frangipane and Palmieri 1983), the earliest stage at Sos H6ytik (Sagona et al.1996), the earliest stage at Btiytiktepe H6ytik (Sagona et al. 1992; 1993), andDegirmentepe Level III (Duru 1979:69-70). While traveling, nomads sometimesuse ruins as foundations for tent-sites (Yakar 2000:202), a habit which has ledto the discovery of these few settlements. For example, the ETC settlement atArslantepe was established on a deserted tel. Hopkins argues that had this notbeen the case, the settlement would not have been discovered (Hopkins 1995:23-24). It is likely that the seasonal settlements at Sos H6ytik, Btiytiktepe H6ytikand Degirmentepe, would not have been found either had they not been locatedon tel sites.

Several transient houses built in ETC style were also uncovered at a numberof urban settlements such as Nor~untepe (Hauptmann 1979). Alongside thepresence in the large cities (as we shall further see in Korucutepe and Tepecik),an ETC presence was also detected in small settlements. At Ta~kun Mevkii PhaseIII an ETC structure was found along with three brick structures (Sagona 1994).At Degirmentepe Level Ia a brick structure was uncovered, while at Level Iban ETC structure was found. The excavator points out that the stratigraphicalconnection between the two is unclear and does not reject the possibility that

Philip's work (1999) demonstrated some of the problems in using ETC ceramics as an etlmicmarker.These wattle and daub buildings originated in the Trans-Caucasian Region where similarbuilding styles appear even earlier than the third millennium BCE (Sagona 1993).

212


Fig. 5. Andiron from Giizelova with a phallic motif (after Ko~ay 1967:Lev XIV: G240).

these may have been contemporaneous (Duru 1979:73).The essence of the connection between the transient structures and the

settlements is quite complex. While in some cases the presence of transientstructures might reflect the existence of ETC pastoral-nomads that integrated intoa 'local' urban system, others might reflect the existence of ETC pastoral nomadsthat joined a community of permanently-settled ETC people (in homogenous ormixed settlements).

The site of Pulur (Ko~ay 1976) seems to present a permanent homogenousETC site. However, most of the permanent ETC settlers appear to haveintegrated into the 'local' settlements. This may be supported by the variousartefact assemblages, and particularly by the architecture that resembles the planof the ETC transient buildings.

Following the plan of the urban houses is somewhat complicated due to alimitation of building space that could 'distort' the original building plan of a house.Nevertheless, when observing houses of the urban settlements ofthe third millenniumBCE in the region of Elazig, one can notice a number of structures with clear ETCcharacteristics. Such structures were observed by Cribb (1991:222, Fig. 11.4b) atTepecik and by Yakar (1985:292) at Korucutepe. Additional houses with a similarplan can be seen at Nor~untepe (Hauptmann 1979: Fig. 39), Degirmentepe Level II(Dum 1979:Pl. 67), and Han Ibrahim Sah level VII (Ertem 1982:Pl. 39).

The different settlements named above are all part of one regional settlement

213

TEL AVIV 30 (2003)

pattern that flourished over the course of the third millennium BCE in EasternAnatolia. The different kinds of settlements seem to have been well integrated,as in a single organism. The existence of such a settlement pattern indicates thesuccess of a mutual cooperation system between the ETC people and the 'local'people. Such success was less common in other parts of the ancient Near East,as we shall further see.

THE DISPERSION OF THE ETC CULTURE IN THE ANATOLIAN REGION

The entry of the ETC culture into Eastern Anatolia began in the Erzurum Region(Sagona 1984). The earliest evidence is from the late Chalcolithic period (e.g., Esin1982; Frangipane 1997:57). During the second half ofthe EB I an intensive migrationoccurred (Yakar 1985:256-259). Prag demonstrated that in many instances there is aconnection between a weak central authority and the entry of nomads into a regionalsystem (Prag 1985:85). During the EB I the political system in the region suffereda certain decline following the loss of influence and ties with the Mesopotamianworld (Frangipane 1997). It is possible that this impairment enabled the penetrationof the ETC culture into the regional system. Later, during the course of the EB, thepresence of the ETC culture in the Elazig Region intensified (e.g., Kelly-Buccellati1978; Esin 1982).

When observing the dispersion of the ETC culture in the ancient Near East anumber of questions arise, notably, the lack of ETC material culture in SoutheasternAnatolia. Although ETC pottery has been discovered at a few sites (Ozdogan 1977;Russell980:42--43 Thissen 1985;Algaze 1990:260,289,333), these are mostly fromthe Adiaman area, the region alongside the Taurus Ridge, and are not characteristicof Southeastern Anatolia. Despite this 'void', a vast amount of ETC material cultureappears in the Amuq Region and the southern Levant (Braidwood and Braidwood1960; Hennessey 1967; Esse 1991). It is likely that the dispersion of the ETC culturedid not take place through this region, but rather through the Anti-Taurus Ridge, intothe Orontes. Brown's (1967) survey of the Anti-Taurus Region makes this a definitepossibility9 (Sagona 1984:30).

Yakar suggested that, due to the massive population density in the region, the ETCpeople did not enter Southeastern Anatolia (Yakar 1985:273). In a later discussionhe stated: ' .. .It is fairly clear that the bearers of this culture did not or could notestablish themselves in southeast Turkey...' (Yakar 1990:95*). It seems that the mainreason was a lack of ability to create a system of cooperation with the settlements ofSoutheastern Anatolia. Pastoral systems are involved in cooperation with the urbancommunity, an interaction that probably worked well in Eastern Anato1ia. However,

For an alternative explanation see Philip 1999.

214


the urban system of Southeastern Anatolia had no need for such an alliance due tothe massive degree of local pastoralism.

The intense caprovine herding in Southeastern Anatolia in the third millenniumBCE can best be discerned from Ebla texts revealing the central place held bytextiles within Ebla's powerful economy (Matthiae 1980:178-182). Although Eb1aislocated in the Syrian region, its environmental conditions are quite similar to those ofsoutheast Anatolia.1o Gelb presents the might of caprovine herding as follows: 'Sheepraising was the mainstay of the local economy: thousands of sheep were raised,supplying the wool for the production of textiles, the main export product of Ebla.Thus wool was the basis ofEbla's commercial prosperity and political power. ... Ebla,as these extraordinary tablets make clear, was an empire built on the backs of simpleshepherds' (Gelb 1982:3). The Ebla texts are dated to 2400-2150 BCE (Matthiae1980), however various fauna records (e.g., Wattenmaker and Stein 1986; Stein 1987)substantiate that this was an intensification of an earlier economy in the region.

The massive part of caprovine herding in the Southeastern Anatolian economy didnot enable 'foreign' pastoral-nomadic elements to join the regional system. Pastoralnomads take advantage of areas not used by agriculturists, however these areas werealready being used by local pastorals. Although the ETC culture was only in partpastoral-nomadic, it seems that this was a central part of the culture and this elementwas unable to find a place to integrate within the economy of Southeastern Anatolia.

EPILOGUE OF A CULTURE

Near the end of the third millennium BCE the material culture characterizingthe ETC culture began to disappear from the Anatolian region.11 Various migrationepisodes whose archaeological evidence has dissipated over the years have beenexplained as acculturation (e.g., Stone 1995; Bunimovitz and Yasur-Landau 1996).While this explanation is feasible, we must ask why acculturation occurred only aftermore than 1,000 years and not before?

The reason may be that during the third millennium BCE a 'system' of closeties existed among the different ETC groups, which aided in the preservation of itspeople's identity. The link was not necessarily through the motherland (as appears in

10 At Ebla, in contrast to most of Southeastern Anatolia, a minute amount of ETC pottery hasbeen exposed at Stage IIa (Matthiae 1980:52-53). Nonetheless, its appearance is not surprisingsince Ebla is also close to western Syria (which has different environmental conditions), wherethe presence of the ETC culture is higher. The paucity of ETC sherds in Ebla is the same asthose found at the edge of the Taurus Mountains and it reflects settlements located on theoutskirts of the ETC cultural zone.

11 Within the Trans-Caucasian Region appears the Korgan culture, which is a direct continuationof the late ETC culture (e.g., Edens 1995).

215

TEL AVIV 30 (2003)

many ethnographic studies: e.g., Anthony 1990, 1997; Branian 1984), but rather asa network of ties spread out over a large region. This 'system' of ties was probablynot singular, but rather composed of different regions that might have functionedas individual 'systems' (for a regional distribution see Sagona 1984). This bondmight have been a result of seasonal movements (most probably of only a part ofthe group). Sagona claims that the ETC entrance into the Anatolian region occurredalong a number of waves during the third millennium BCE (Sagona 1984), wavesthat probably renewed and strengthened the ETC cultural identity as well.

The existence of the ETC culture in Anatolia for over 1,000 years impliesthe intentional preservation of the culture's customs. Sagona accordingly states:" ... They preserved as many aspects of their customs as they could, and madetheir presence felt ... " (Sagona 1984:138). Nevertheless, the query regarding theinteraction between the ETC people and the 'locals' remains. It is expected thatthe interaction would have created some 'hybrid' material culture. This may beidentified, for example, in the Elazig region where a few similar motifs were foundin the 'painted pottery' (one of the 'local' pottery groups) and the ETC pottery(Marro 1997:94). However, even if the ETC people had indeed adopted part ofthe local material culture, how is it that during the continuation of their dispersionsouthward, one finds that only clearly identified ETC elements 'travel'? The factthat the 'painted pottery' of the Keban region failed to appear in the south (Marro1997) is the most obvious example. The importance of this phenomenon is thatthe ETC people probably intentionally acquired as little external influence aspossible. A by-product of accentuating their identity was a distinction from the'local' Anatolian entity and as a result underscoring themselves as 'different', asituation that probably weakened their position in relation to the 'locals'.

The decline and eventual complete disappearance of this culture in the Levantand Anatolia was probably a result of the increasing pastoral element in the ancientNear East towards the end of the third millennium BCE. Although Ebla representsthe augmentation of the pastoral element (Gelb 1986) the emphasis should be placedon divergent local settlements whose economy shifted towards the end of the thirdmillennium BCE from agriculture to pastoralism. This was the situation in the southernLevant (Dever 1992; Finkelstein 1992), Syria (Prag 1985:86) and most probably inAnatolia as well. The ETC culture began to disintegrate at a time whenpastoralism wasbecoming more common throughout the Near East. The intensification of pastoralismcreated an inevitable strain on the grazing-grounds, preventing shepherds from faroff from arriving-a situation that probably prevented continuous interconnectednesswithin and between the different groups. This severing of bonds might have led in thelong run to acculturation and the eventual disappearance of this culture.

216


SUMMARY

It has long been discussed that the ETC culture had a pastoral-nomadiccomponent. By focusing on Eastern Anatolia I have demonstrated how the existenceof such a component may shed light on a few problems in the research of the ETCculture. The ability of the ETC people (and the part practicing pastoral-nomadism,in particular) to be a part of a mutual cooperation system between pastoral-nomadsand farmers was the primary topic discussed. For now, it is not possible to fullyestimate the weight of the pastoral-nomadism within the ETC economy and culture.It does seem, however, that pastoral-nomadism was an integral part of the essenceof this society, and can be seen as an ethos. This point is well emphasized by theconnection between the andirons and the horseshoe hearths. The importance of thepastoral-nomadic component in the ETC culture helps to explain the ETC regionaldispersion pattern, as well as the deterioration of the ETC culture towards the end ofthe third millennium BCE.

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Jak Yakar for his help and support in writing this paper. I wouldalso like to thank Ophra and Simona Gronemann for their help with the Englishmanuscript and Iris Rosenberg who drew the map.

REFERENCES

Algaze, G. 1990. Town and Country in Southeastern Anatolia II: The StratigraphicSequence at Kurban H6yiik. Chicago.

Anthony, D. 1990. Migration in Archaeology: The Baby and the Bathwater.American Anthropologist 92/4:895-914.

Anthony, D. 1997. Prehistoric Migration as Social Process. In: Chapman, J. andHamerow, H. eds. Migrations and Invasions in Archaeological Explanation.(BAR International Series 664). Oxford.

Bates, D.G. 1973. Nomads and Farmers: A Study of the Y6riik of SoutheasternTurkey. (University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, AnthropologicalPapers, 52). Ann Arbor.

Braidwood, R.J. and Braidwood, L.S. 1960. Excavations in the Plain of Antioch LThe Earlier Assemblages Phases A-J Chicago.

217

TEL AVIV 30 (2003)

Branigan, K. 1984. Minoan Community Colonies in the Aegean? In: Hiigg, R. andMarinatos, N. eds. The Minoan Thalassocracy. Myth and Reality. Stockolm:49-51.

Brown, G.H. 1967. Prehistoric Pottery from the Antitaurus. AnSt 17:123-164.Bunimovitz, S. and Yasur-Landau, A. 1996. Philistine and Israelite Pottery:

A Comparative Approach to the Question of Pots and People. Tel Aviv 23:88-101.

Burney, C. 1958. Eatern Anatolia in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age. AnSt 8:157-209.

Burney, C. and Lang, M. 1971. The People of the Hills. London.Burney, C. 1996. "The Highland Sheep are Sweeter ... ". Abr-Nahrain Supplement

5:1-16.Chang, C. and Koster, H. 1986. Beyond Bones: Toward an Archaeology of

Pastoralism. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 9:97-148.Cooper, J.C. 1982. An Illustrated Encyclopedia of Traditional Symbols. London.Cribb, R.L. 1991. Nomads in Archaeology. Cambridge.Della Volpe, A. 1990. From the Hearth to the Creation of Boundaries. Journal of

Indo-European Studies 18:157-184.Della Volpe, A. 1992. On Indo-European Ceremonial and Socio-Political Elements

Underlying the Origin of Formal Boundaries. Journal of Indo-EuropeanStudies 20:71-122.

Dever, W.G. 1992. Pastoralism and the End of the Urban Early Bronze Age inPalestine. In: Bar-Yosef, O. and Khazanov, A. eds. Pastoralism in the Levant.Archaeological Materials in Anthropological Perspectives. Madison, WI:83-92.

Diamant, S. and Rutter, J. 1969. Homed Objects in Anatolia and the Near East andPossible Connections with the Minoan "Horns of Consecration". AnSt 19:147-177.

Duru, R. 1979. Keban Project Degirmentepe Excavations 1973. (Middle EastTechnical University Keban Project Publications, Series III, No.2.). Ankara.

Edens, C. 1995. Transcaucaisa at the End ofthe Early Bronze Age. BASOR 299/300:53-64.

Ertem, H. 1982. Keban Project Han Ibrahim $ah Excavations 1970-1971. (MiddleEast Technical University Keban Project Publications, Series III, No.3.)Ankara.

Esin, U. 1982. Tepecik Excavations, 1974. Keban Project 1974-5 Activities:95-118.

Esse, D.L. 1991. Subsistence, Trade and Social Change in Early Bronze AgePalestine. (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 50). Chicago.

218


Finkelstein, I. 1992.Pastoralism in the Highlands of Canaan in the ThirdMillennia B.C.E.In: Bar-Yosef,O. and Khazanov,A. eds.Pastoralism in theLevant.ArchaeologicalMaterials inAnthropologicalPerspectives. Madison, WI: 133-142.

Frangipane, M. and Palmieri, A. 1983. A Protourban Center of the Late Uruk Period.Origini 12:287--454.

Frangipane, M. 1990. Excavations at Arslantepe Malatya the 1989 Campaign. KaziSonur;lari Toplantisi 12/1:209-223.

Frangipane, M. 1997. A 4th-Millennium Temple/Palace Complex at Arslantepe-Malatya. North-South Relations and the Formation of Early State Societies inthe Northern Regions of Greater Mesopotamia. Paleorient 23\1 :45-73.

Gelb, I.J. 1986. Ebla and Lagash: Environmental Contrast. In: Weiss, H. ed. TheOrigins of Cities In Dry-Farming Syria and Mesopotamia In the ThirdMillennium B.C. Guilford: 157-167.

Gelb, I.J. 1982. Review of Pettinato, The Archives ofEbla. Sciences 22:32-33.Hauptmann, H. 1979- Die Grabungen auf den Nur~un-Tepe, 1973. Keban Project

1973 Activities. Ankara: 61-96.Helms, S. 1971. Ta~kun Mevkii. AnSt 21:8-10.Hennessey, J.B. 1967. The Foreign Relations of Palestine During the Early Bronze

Age. London.Hopkins, L. 1996. The Rise of Social Complexity in East Central Anatolia in the

Early Bronze Age. Abr-Nahrain Supplement 5:17-26.Hood, S. 1951. Excavations et Tabara El Akrad, 1948-1949- AnSt 1:113-147.Kelly-Buccellati, M. 1978. The Early Bronze Age Pottery. Descriptive and

Comparative Analysis. In: van-Loon, M.N. ed. Korucutepe 2. Amsterdam:67-96.

Kelly-Buccellati, M. 1979. The Outer Fertile Crescent Culture: North EasternConnections of Syria and Palestine in the Third Millennium B.C. Ugarit-Forschungen 11:413--430.

Ko~ay, H.Z. and Vary, H. 1964. Pulur Kazisi. Tiirk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi.Ankara.

Ko~ay, H.Z. and Vary, H. 1967. Giizelova Kazisi. Tiirk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi.Ankara.

Ko~ay, H.Z. 1976. Keban Project Pulur Excavations 1968-1970. (Middle EastTechnical University Keban Project Publications, Series III, No.1). Ankara.

Marfoe, L. et al. 1986. The Chicago Euphrates Archaeological Project 1980-1984:An Interim Report. Anatolica 13:37-148.

Marro, C. 1997. La Culture du Haut-Euphrate au Bronze Ancien.Istanbul.Matthiae, P. 1980. Ebla. London.Ozdogan, M. 1977. Lower Euphrates Basin 1977 Survey. (Lower Euphrates Project

219

TELAVN 30 (2003)

Publication, Series I, No.2). Istanbul.Philip, G. 1999. Complexity and Diversity in the Southern Levant During the

Third Millennium BC: The Evidence of Khirbet Kerak Ware. Journal ofMediterranean Archaeology 12:26-57.

Prag, K. 1985. Ancient and Modem Pastoral Migration in the Levant. Levant17:81-88.

Russell, H. 1980. Pre-Classical Pottery of Eastern Anatolia. (BAR InternationalSeries 85). Oxford.

Sagona, AG. 1984. The Caucasian Region in the Early Bronze Age. (BARInternational Series 214). Oxford.

Sagona, AG. 1993. Settlement and Society in Late Prehistoric Trans-Caucasus.In: Frangipane, M., Hauptmann, H., Liverani, M., Matthiae, P. andMellink, M. eds. Between the Rivers and Over the Mountains. Rome:453-474.

Sagona, AG. 1994. TheA~van Sites 3, Keban Rescue Excavations, Eastern Anatolia.(The British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 18.) Ankara.

Sagona, A., Erkmen, M., Sagona, C. and Thomas, 1. 1996. Excavations at SosH6yiik, 1995. AnSt 46:27-52.

Sagona, A, Erkmen, M., Sagona, C. and Howells, S. 1997. Excavations at SosH6yiik, 1996. Anatolica 23:181-225.

Sagona, A, Pemberton, E., and Mcphee, 1. 1992. Excavations at Buyiiktepe H6yiik,1991. AnSt 43:29-46.

Sagona, A, Pemberton, E., and Mcphee, 1. 1993. Excavations at Buyiiktepe H6yiik,1992. AnSt 43:69-84.

Sagona, A, Sagona, C. and Ozkorucuklu, H. 1995. Excavations at Sos H6yiik, 1994.AnSt 45:193-218.

Stein, G. 1987. Regional Economic Integration in Early State Societies: ThirdMillennium B.C. Pastoral Production at Grittile, Southeast Turkey. Pa!eorient13:101-111.

Stone, B.l. 1995. The Philistines and Acculturation: Culture Change and EthnicContinuty in the Iron Age. BASOR 298:7-32.

Takaoglu, T. 2000. Hearth Structures in the Religious Pattern of Early Bronze AgeNortheast Anatolia. AnSt 50:11-16.

Thissen, L.C. 1985. The Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Pottery fromHayaz H6yiik. Anatolica 12:75-130.

van Loon, M.N. 1978. Korucutepe 2. Amsterdam.Wallon, R. and Kantman, S. 1969. Early Bronze Age Development in the Keban

Reservoir, East-Central Turkey. Current Anthropology: 10/1:128-13 3.Wattenmaker, P. and Stein, G. 1986. Early Pastoral Production in Southeast

220


Anatolia: Faunal Remains from Kurban Hoyiik and Gritille Hoyiik. Anatolica12:90-96.

Yakar, J. 1985. The Later Prehistory of Anatolia. The Chalcolithic and Early BronzeAge. (BAR International Series 268). Oxford.

Yakar, J. 1990. The Chronology of the Transcaucasian-EastAnatolian Early BronzeAge. E121: 94*-100*.

Yakar, J. 2000. Ethnoarchaeology of Anatolia: Rural Socio-Economy in the Bronzeand Iron Ages. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel AvivUniversity No. 17). Tel Aviv.

221

A glance at the Early Trans-Caucasian culture through its pastoral-nomadic component: A case study...

Documents

Transcript of A glance at the Early Trans-Caucasian culture through its pastoral-nomadic component: A case study...