BAR International Series 2581 (I)2013

SOMA 2012 Identity and Connectivity

Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Florence, Italy, 1–3 March 2012

VOLUME I

Edited by

Luca Bombardieri, Anacleto D’Agostino, Guido Guarducci, Valentina Orsi

and Stefano Valentini

Published by

ArchaeopressPublishers of British Archaeological ReportsGordon House276 Banbury RoadOxford OX2 7EDEnglandbar@archaeopress.comwww.archaeopress.com

BAR S2581 (I)

SOMA 2012. Identity and Connectivity: Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Florence, Italy, 1–3 March 2012. Volume I

© Archaeopress and the individual authors 2013

ISBN 978 1 4073 1204 0 (this volume)ISBN 978 1 4073 1205 7 (volume II)ISBN 978 1 4073 1206 4 (set of both volumes)

Printed in England by Information Press, Oxford

All BAR titles are available from:

Hadrian Books Ltd122 Banbury RoadOxfordOX2 7BPEnglandwww.hadrianbooks.co.uk

The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com

The Social Use of Metal at the Beginning of the Early Bronze Age in the Upper Euphrates Valley Leigh A. Stork (University of Edinburgh, School of History, Classics and Archaeology, UK) Abstract The transitional period between the Late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze (c. 3100 – 2700 BC) in the Upper Euphrates Valley of northern Syria and southeastern Turkey is marked by a noticeable emphasis on craft production and new expressions of social display. This prolonged social, political and economic interaction between the Upper Euphrates Valley and other regions within the Near East promoted the necessity for visible and tangible displays of belonging, wealth and status; displays that essentially served to illustrate an individual’s or a group’s identity within both horizontal and vertical strata of society. Metal items would have been highly desirable for such displays as metal itself is a highly mobile and malleable medium that had a recognised, albeit changeable, value throughout the Near East. The conspicuous consumption of metal items by the inhabitants of the Upper Euphrates Valley settlements during the early third millennium can be interpreted as reflecting the changing nature and need for social displays of status and identity in a period of greater interregional interaction, population mixing and the establishment of new socio-political and economic structures. Keywords Late Chalcolithic, Early Bronze Age, Upper Euphrates Valley, Metal The region of Upper Mesopotamia that is being examined here in greater detail is the Upper Euphrates Valley, a geographical area that encompasses a c. 500km stretch of the Euphrates River from the site of Qara Quzaq in northern Syria to Korucutepe in the Keban Dam catchment area in southeastern Turkey. The archaeology of this region has been especially prolific in the past 40 years with the building of the Keban, Karakaya, Ataturk and Birecik dams in Turkey and the Tishrin and Tabqa dams in northern Syria. The sites that were researched as part of the salvage and rescue efforts ahead of the construction of these dams can be roughly divided into discrete sectors based on the apparent clustering of the surveyed and excavated settlements around the dams. There are three sectors in the part of the Euphrates River being considered here, of which the Carchemish sector is the furthest south and includes the sites clustered around Carchemish and Birecik dams close to the modern Turkish-Syrian border. The second sector is includes the Samsat-Lidar group of sites between the Karababa (Ataturk) and Karakaya dams in the central part of the

study area. The Malatya sector sites are the furthest north and include the sites north of the Karakaya dam and the sites submerged by the Keban dam reservoir as far east as Korucutepe (Figure 1). These multiple small settlements are primarily situated on the low foothills and plateaus of southeastern Turkey and the Pleistocene terraces that flank the Euphrates River in northern Syria (though there are also sites located on the floodplain) which provided cultivable areas for agriculture as well as natural defences from the seasonal flooding of the Euphrates River, which has since been curtailed by the construction of multiple dams. The upland steppe zone away from the river was also important for the provisioning of the Euphrates Valley settlements as this zone could be used for pastoralism and limited subsistence agriculture, though there would have been a greater element of uncertainty and crop failure in these more marginal zones, especially in areas where the average rainfall was at or below 250mm annually (Wilkinson 2000, 2004, 2007). The urgent need for rescue and salvage excavations during the planning and initial building stages of the dam projects meant that there was a concentrated burst of archaeological investigation of the threatened sites ahead of the flooding of the river valley. However, because of the sheer quantity of sites found in this region and the limited time scale in which to carry out subsequent archaeological investigation, the earliest periods at many of these sites received only cursory exploration due to extensive site size or depth of occupation deposits, which could frequently reach more than 18 metres above virgin soil. Despite these limitations, the data reported from the many rescue and salvage excavations was pivotal in changing previously held conceptions of the later prehistory of the Upper Euphrates Valley, especially the Late Chalcolithic (c. 4200-3100 BC) and first half of the Early Bronze Age (c. 3100-2600 BC). Of particular interest here is the transition between the terminal phases of the Late Chalcolithic (LC 4-5) and the initial periods of the Early Bronze Age (EB I-II), a span of time that was once thought to have been characterised by settlement disjunction and decline- if not all out collapse- as a result of the Uruk withdrawal from Upper Mesopotamia at the end of the fourth millennium (Algaze 1993, 1999). While there is a degree of settlement reorganisation during this transition, overall the excavations in the Upper Euphrates Valley have shown that trade and communication routes between Upper Mesopotamia, Transcaucasia and the Upper Euphrates Valley continued to be used based on the presence of foreign ceramics, architectural styles, and other craft and trade items that were found at multiple sites in these regions (See Behm-Blancke 2003; Frangipane 1998; Palumbi 2008; Rothman 2003, 2005; Schwartz 2003).

25

It is also during this transitional period that the role of metal in the Upper Euphrates Valley seems to have changed drastically; not only did many more sites have metal objects, but the number1 of metal objects being produced and consumed at these sites had increased exponentially from the Late Chalcolithic. In order to gauge just how significant the change in metal use was over time in the Upper Euphrates Valley, a very brief review of the data from the periods leading up to this drastic change is necessary. A survey of the occupied sites dating to the first half of the fourth millennium (Late Chalcolithic 2-3) shows that the use and production of metal objects in the Upper Euphrates Valley was fairly rare. Only three sites (Hacınebi, Arslantepe and Norşuntepe) 2 report both finished metal artefacts and detritus associated with metallurgy, and one further site (Fatmalı-Kalecik) 3 had evidence of silver cupellation taking place on site but no finished metal objects. Between the three sites mentioned above there are c. 34 published metal objects that can be divided into categories of personal ornaments, tools, weapons and miscellaneous items (Figure 2). Three of these objects (two silver rings and one copper ring) came from a a child’s jar burial at Hacınebi (Stein 1999), while the remaining 31 items came from domestic, industrial or public contexts from within the settlements (Figure 2). There are twice as many metal objects mentioned in the published reports for sites occupied during the second half of the fourth millennium (Late Chalcolithic 4-5). These c. 71 metal artefacts (Figure 3) were found at eight different sites (Jerablus Tahtani, Hacınebi, Kurban Höyük, Samsat Höyük, Hassek Höyük, Arslantepe, Tepecik and Korucutepe) 4, of which 54 were found in domestic, public or industrial contexts while the remaining 17 objects (all but two of them made of silver) were found in burials from Korucutepe (van Loon 1978) and Arslantepe (Caneva and Palmieri 1983) (Figure 3). At this time there were more sites with metal objects than sites with evidence of contemporaneous intramural metalworking, and the sites that did have evidence of metal workshops seem to have been producing metal objects or processing ore on a scale above the immediate needs of their population. This may relate to the lack of metalworking evidence at sites that have been interpreted as Uruk ‘colonies’ or ‘outposts’, and it is entirely likely that the inhabitants of the local settlements were producing craft goods, including metal artefacts, as well as agricultural surplus to trade with the southern Mesopotamians who had moved into the region. However, by the end of the fourth millennium the Uruk expansion had ended and trade with southern

1 As a caveat, it should be noted here that the data used to derive the quantities of artefacts described below are solely based upon currently available published information only and therefore does not include any unpublished or unprovenanced materials. 2 See respectively Stein 1999; Caneva and Palmieri 1983; Schmidt 2002. 3 See Hess et al. 1998 4 See respectively Peltenburg et al. 2000; Stein 1999; Algaze 1990; Özgüc 2009; Behm-Blancke 1992; Palmieri et al. 1999; Esin 1976; Van Loon 1978.

Mesopotamia had been severely curtailed, marking the beginning of the transition to the Early Bronze Age. Despite the possible settlement disruption as a result of the Uruk withdrawal, overall the craft industries seemed to have weathered this storm fairly well and the inhabitants of the Upper Euphrates Valley continued to produce craft goods for local and foreign consumption rather than the metal industry showing signs of decline as would be expected if the region had suffered a large-scale collapse. In fact, all of the evidence indicates that there was a major increase in the amount of metal being produced consumed in the Upper Euphrates Valley at the beginning of the third millennium (EB I-II). The quantity of published metal artefacts and the associated metalworking detritus dating to this period indicate a fairly radical shift had occurred in the role that metal played in the Euphrates Valley economy and social relations from the Late Chalcolithic. In sharp contrast to the quantity of metal artefacts reported for the entire fourth millennium, there are more than 755 published metal objects from the EB I-II, most of which were personal ornaments as can be seen in the figure below (Figure 4). These c. 755 metal artefacts were distributed between 19 sites; six sites (Tilbeş Höyük, Lidar Höyük, Hassek Höyük, Arslantepe, Pulur-Sakyol and Norşuntepe) 5 had both finished objects and evidence of metalworking taking place on site, another 13 sites (Qara Quzaq, Shiukh Tahtani, Carchemish, Zeytinli Bahçe, Hacınebi, Birecik Dam Cemetery, Kurban Höyük, Titris Höyük, Gelinciktepe, Taşkun Mevkii, Taşkun Kale, Aşvan Kale and Han Ibrahim Şah) 6 only had finished metal objects. Two additional sites (Shiukh Fawqani and Tepecik) 7 had only metalworking materials reported without any metal artefacts. A staggering 88% of the total metal assemblage from the EB I-II was found in mortuary contexts compared to the remaining 12%, which was found in domestic, public or industrial contexts from these settlements. But what brought about the drastic increase in the production and consumption of metal objects in the Early Bronze I-II and why did the contexts in which these items were used in alter so much from the Late Chalcolithic? The answer to these questions can perhaps be found in a closer examination of the socio-economic systems, the changing social use of metal from the Late Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age and corresponding factors such as ideology, identity, and status. The use of metal in the Upper Euphrates Valley during the Late Chalcolithic 2-3 can be considered to be a fairly local affair in which the ore used to make these items was acquired and processed through community effort with the finished metal items also produced and consumed locally. The emphasis on utilitarian tools (Figure 2) may suggest that these objects were kept as part of a toolkit that was accessible to multiple members of a population or kin group within a settlement rather

5 See respectively Fuensanta 2007; Hauptmann 1982; Behm-Blancke 1992; Frangipane et al. 2001; Koşay 1976; Schmidt 2002. 6 See respectively Montero Fenollós 2004; Falsone and Sconzo 2008; Falsone and Sconzo 2007; Frangipane et al. 2002; Stein 1999; Squadrone 2007; Algaze 1990; Algaze and Mısır 1995; Palmieri 1967; Sagona 1994; Ertem 1982. 7 See respectively Bachelot and Fales 2005; Esin 1976.

26

than these items being owned by specific individuals. Personal ornaments were also found in this period, but for the most part these small items are more notable for their materials cost than the level of skill required for their production. These personal ornaments can be interpreted as symbols of a burgeoning stratified society, though they may also have been used as talismans, portable trade items or indicators of a specific role within a larger social organisation (i.e. religious figure, arbitrator, trader, etc.). Altogether, the limited use of metal in the LC 2-3 is suggestive of a corporate staple based socio-economic system with a low level of social stratification. In such a system the social use of metal was oriented more on the community, if not a communal basis, in which practical items made of copper or copper alloys rather than prestige items made of more exotic metals were the focus of metal production, consumption and use. Metal was still being used within a corporate socio-economic system in the second half of the fourth millennium, though the greater quantity of objects and growing number of sites with metal coupled with the Uruk expansion would seem to suggest that the inhabitants of the Upper Euphrates Valley had grasped the economic potential of the metals trade and began to supplement the traditional staple economy with the production and trade of finished metal objects and other craft goods. The use of silver in several very rich burials dating to the second half of the fourth millennium can be interpreted as evidence that there was social stratification in place at this time despite equalising pressures from the larger corporate or kin group that had limited the ability of individuals to accrue wealth in the earlier Late Chalcolithic. This reflects the theory of dual evolution as described by Blanton (1998) and Blanton and Fargher (2008); in such a system both corporate and exclusionary socio-economic systems can be present at the same time as the community pressure to promote the common good balances out the aggrandising behaviour of individuals seeking to elevate their status within the community. Following the Uruk withdrawal at the end of the Late Chalcolithic, the new socio-political and economic systems that were put into place allowed more opportunities for individuals to accrue wealth and attain increased status as the destabilisation of the corporate systems shifted emphasis away from the larger group. The lack of strong centralising powers in the Upper Euphrates Valley settlements in the initial phases of the Early Bronze Age meant that multiple households or immediate kin groups had access to the materials and resources that could be used to change their social role in the community, thereby creating a more vertically integrated society that was perpetuated by the increased production and consumption of craft goods. The conspicuous disposal of metal items in EB I-II mortuary contexts was one method by which an individual or family could modify their status through social display as those attempting to gain or maintain higher social status were required to continuously renegotiate the meaning of prestige items through conspicuous displays of wealth and status. As was noted above, the vast majority (88%) of the metal assemblage from the EB I-II was disposed of in mortuary contexts with just over half of the c. 240 published

burials8 included in the dataset having metal objects included with them. While this is a fairly substantial proportion of the represented population, very few of these burials contained the large quantities of metal objects that would intimate that the interred represented the truly elite of a settlement when compared to the numerous individuals who had one or two metal items included in their grave good assemblage (Figure 5). This is a considerable difference from the distribution of metal grave goods in Late Chalcolithic 2-5 where only four of c. 55 published burials in the same stretch of the Upper Euphrates Valley are reported to have had metal grave goods. Additional differences can be seen in the types of metal used as nearly all of the EB I-II metal grave goods were made of copper while in the Late Chalcolithic nearly all of the metal grave goods were made of silver. The seemingly unrestricted use of metal by multiple individuals in contemporaneous mortuary contexts lends credence to the idea that metal was viewed by many Euphrateans as a social necessity in the EB I-II, a need that was linked to public displays of wealth, status, identity and connectivity with a larger group. This change in the social use of metal can be at least partially attributed to the establishment of new socio-political and economic systems during the transition from the Late Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age which allowed the formation of new groups and novel mechanisms by which these groups or individual units could obtain wealth and power. These groups could be defined on a macro-level, such as identifying members of a settlement or mobile community, or be based on a micro-level which emphasised kin, ideological, status or other more specific sub-groups within a larger population. It is not inconceivable that these newly established micro- or macro- level groups needed to create and maintain overt symbols of identity that tied them together and which could be understood by a diverse audience purely on a visual level. Cooper (2006) ascribes the increasingly common trend of burying the dead in cemeteries as an expression of belonging to a particular tribe or corporate group that extended into death. Following this line of thought, the use of metal grave goods in the EB I-II Upper Euphrates Valley burials could have served a similar social function as being buried in a cemetery. As a resource metal had social, economic and political value not only in raw or finished form, but also as a tool by which to influence society and display intangible concepts such as identity, ideology and status. The usefulness of this resource in social interactions is increasingly apparent from the Late Chalcolithic onwards as displays of socio-political and economic power were becoming increasingly necessary to inter- and intra- regional interactions. These displays needed to be both visible and able to be manipulated in order to adapt to changing ideologies over time, and as a fluid medium metal could be used in multiple and diverse social

8 This number only represents burials that have been specifically mentioned in published sources; i.e. pot burial x from level x and so forth. Burials from cemeteries without published material on specific graves from within the cemeteries have not been included, nor have burials that have been described as looted.

27

situations. Therefore, the conspicuous consumption of metal craft items is related here to the changing nature of public displays of wealth, power and identity and the need to express these concepts in a highly visible way. These social displays became more important as the socio-political and economic relations between settlements in the Upper Euphrates Valley and beyond became increasingly more complex and individuals within a given settlement manoeuvred to obtain as much wealth and surplus craft and subsistence resources as possible. Despite the socio-political and economic factors that promoted individualisation, shared ideologies enacted through public social displays allowed a mechanism by which connectivity and identity could be expressed within a discrete population as well as the wider region. It is impossible to say that any one particular type of item had a specific meaning attached to it, but the function of these items may give hints as to their social use. Metal weapons, while visually intimidating, were not likely to have been carried around for every day use (with the possible exception of knives), but rather these items were reserved for special occasions such as engaging in conflict or public displays of power and authority- more in line with what Helms (1993) described as ‘shock’ weapons. On the other hand, small ornamental items such as beads, bracelets, hair spirals, earrings and pins would have been ideal for everyday displays and would have been more ‘affordable’ to a greater number of people as they typically required less metal and skill to manufacture. The widespread production, distribution and seemingly indiscriminate inclusion of metal objects in mortuary contexts at the beginning of the third millennium implies that multiple groups paid into the ideologies surrounding the social use of metal in the early centuries of the third millennium in the Upper Euphrates Valley. However, Derevinski and Sørensen (2002) note that the meaning of objects is shaped by both individuals and groups and these meanings are constantly in transition and prone to change. Metal was an ideal medium with which to convey social, political and economic information to others for several reasons; metal can be used to make multiple types of objects that could be utilised for both practical and prestige purposes, the objects could be melted down and remade into new objects when trends changed, and items made of metal could be used in social displays in multiple situations and geographical areas. The increasingly complex socio-political and economic interactions between the sites in the Upper Euphrates Valley and those sites outside of the immediate region allowed for new avenues to wealth and power in addition to the pre-existing reliance upon kin dynamics. The increased use of metal in the EB I-II is in keeping with the trappings of a wealth finance socio-economic system, and one of the possible reasons for this increased demand for metal is that highly visible signs of ideological affiliation, belonging or identity were thought to be socially necessary in societies that had social differentiation and interregional interactions. While referring to state level societies, Schortman and Urban’s

assessment of the social need for craft items is valuable to this discussion: As the array of social affiliations proliferates within state-level societies, it is increasingly important to develop physically overt cues that signal who is party to any interaction, which identities they are employing, and what can be expected of them…Craft production, therefore, is spurred by broad-scale demands for easily decoded, physically distinctive items useful as explicit markers of social affiliation (Schortman and Urban 2004: 198). When viewed thusly, the widespread use of metal in the Upper Euphrates Valley during the EB I-II can be interpreted as part of social displays that signalled not only economic and social status, but also identity and connectivity with a particular group or ideology. Such displays could be used both in life and in death as the numerous EB I-II metal grave goods attest to, indicating that visual displays of social affiliation were important to the inhabitants of the Upper Euphrates Valley at this time. Bibliography Algaze, G. (ed.) 1990. Town and Country in Southeastern Anatolia Vol. II: The stratigraphy and sequence at Kurban Höyük (ed. G. Algaze). Chicago, University of Chicago. Algaze, G. 1993. The Uruk World System: The Dynamics of Expansion of Early Mesopotamian Civilization. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Algaze, G. 1999. Trends in the Archaeological Development of the Upper Euphrates Basin of Southeastern Anatolia During the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages. In G. Del Olmo Lete and J. L. Montero Fenollos (eds.) Archaeology of the Upper Syrian Euphrates: The Tishrin Dam Area, 535-572. Barcelona, Editorial AUSA. Algaze, G. and Mısır, A. 1995. Titriş Höyük: An Early Bronze Age Urban Center in Southeastern Anatolia, 1993. 1993 Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı vol.1, 107-120. Ankara, Kültür Bakanlığı Milli Kütüphane Basınevı. Bachelot, L. and Fales, F. M. (eds.) 2005. Tell Shiukh Fawqani 1994 – 1998. Padova, Sargon. Behm-Blancke. M. R. (ed.) 1992. Hassek Höyük. Naturwissenschaftliche Unterschungen und Lithische Industrie. Tubingen, Ernst Wasmuth Verlag. Behm-Blancke. M. R. 2003. Northern Frontiers: Early Ninevite 5 Contacts with Southeastern Anatolia. In E. Rova and H. Weiss (eds.) Subartu IX: The Origins of North Mesopotamian Civilization: Ninevite 5 Chronology, Economy, Society, 481-92. Brepols Publisher. Blanton, R. 1998. Beyond Centralization: Steps Towards a Theory of Egalitarian Behavior in Archaic States. In G.

28

Feinman and J. Marcus (eds.) Archaic States, 135-172. Santa Fe, School of American Research Press. Blanton, R. and Fargher, L. 2008. Collective Action in the Formation of Pre-Modern States. New York, Springer. Caneva, C. and Palmieri, A. 1983. Metalwork at Arslantepe in Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I: The Evidence from Metal Analyses. Origini XII 2, 637-54. Cooper, L. 2006. Early Urbanism on the Syrian Euphrates. London, Routledge. Derevenski, J. and Sørensen, M. 2002. Becoming Cultural: Society and the Incorporation of Bronze. In B. Ottaway and E Wager (eds.) Metals and Society, 117-121. Oxford, Archaeopress. Ertem, H. 1982. Keban Project: Han Ibrahim Şah Excavations 1970-1971. Ankara, Türk Tarıh Kurumu Basimevı. Esin, U. 1976. Tepecık Excavations, 1972. In Keban Project: 1972 Activities. Ankara, METU, pp. 109-17. Falsone, G. and Sconzo, P. 2007. The ‘champagne-cup’ period at Carchemish. A review of the Early Bronze Age levels on the Acropolis Mound and the problem of the Inner Town. In E. Peltenburg (ed.) Euphrates River Valley Settlement: The Carchemish Sector in the Third Millennium BC, 73-93. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Falsone, G. and Sconzo, P. 2008. Tell Shiukh Tahtani: Report of the 2008 Season. <http://www.unipa.it/falsone/en/TST08en.pdf> Frangipane, M. 1998. Changes in Upper Mesopotamian/ Anatolian Relations at the Beginning of 3rd Millennium B.C. In M. Lebeau (ed.) About Subartu IV, I, 195-218. Brepols Publishers. Frangipane, M., Alvaro, C., Balossi, F. and Siracusano, G. 2002. The 2000 Campaign at Zeytinlibahçe Höyük. In N. Tuna and J. Valibeyoğlu (eds.) Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilısu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs Activities in 2000, 83-99. Ankara, Middle East Technical University. Frangipane, M., Di Nocera, G.M., Hauptmann, A., Morbidelli, P., Palmieri, A., Sadori, L., Schultz, M. and Schmidt-Schultz, T. 2001. New Symbols of a New Power in a “Royal” Tomb from 3000 BC Arslantepe, Malatya (Turkey). Paléorient, 27/2, 105-39. Fuensanta, J.G. 2007. The Tilbes Project (Birecik Dam, Turkish Euphrates): the Early Bronze Evidence. In E. Peltenburg (ed.) Euphrates River Valley Settlement: The Carchemish sector in the Third Millennium BC, 142-151. Oxford, Oxbow Books.

Hauptmann, H. 1982. Lidar Höyük, 1981. Anatolian Studies 32, 17-8. Helms, M. 1993. Craft and the Kingly Ideal: Art, Trade and Power. Austin, University of Texas Press. Hess, K., Hauptmann, A., Wright, H. and Whallon, R. 1998. Evidence of fourth millennium B.C. silver production at Fatmalı-Kalecik, East Anatolia. In H.G. Bachmann, R. Maddin, T. Rehren, A. Hauptmann and J. Muhly (eds.) Metallurgica Antiqua: in Honour of Hans-Gert Bachmann and Robert Maddin, 57-67. Bochum, Deutches Bergbau Museum. Koşay, H. 1976. Keban Project: Pulur Excavations 1968-1970. Ankara, METU. Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. 1996. The Archaeological Evidence for International Commerce: Public and/or Private Enterprise in Mesopotamia? In M. Hudson and B. Levine (eds.) Privitization in the Ancient Near East and Classical World, 73-108. Cambridge, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography. Montero Fenollós, J. L. 2004. La ‘Tumba de la Princesa’ de Qara Quzaq: Metal, muerte y prestigio en la Cuenca Sirio-Mesopotámica a omienzos del III milenio a.C. Historiae 1, 36-55. Özgüc, N. 2009. Samsat: Sumeysat, Samosata, Kumaha, Hahha, Hahhum: Bir baskent ve kalenin uzun yasaminin 6000 yillik doneminden kesitler. Ankara, Turk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlari Palmieri, A. 1967. Insediamento del Bronzo Antico a Gelinciktepe (Malatya). Origini I, 117-193. Palmieri, A., Frangipane, M., Hauptmann, A., and Hess, K. 1999. Early metallurgy at Arslantepe during the Late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age IA- IB periods. In A. Hauptmann, E. Pernicka, T. Rehren and U. Yalçin (eds.) The Beginnings of Metallurgy: Proceedings of the International Conference “The Beginnings of Metallurgy”, Bochum 1995, 141-148. Bochum, Bergbau-Museum. Palumbi, G. 2008. The Red and Black. Social and Cultural Interaction between the Upper Euphrates and Southern Caucasus Communities in the Fourth and Third Millennium BC. Rome, Sapienza Università di Roma. Peltenburg, E., Eastaugh, E., Hewson, M., Jackson, A., McCarthy, A. and Rymer, T. 2000. Jerablus-Tahtani, Syria, 1998-9: Preliminary Report. Levant 32, 53-75. Rothman, M. 2003 Ripples in the Stream: Transcaucasia-Anatolian Interaction in the Murat/Euphrates Basin at the Beginning of the Third Millennium BC. In A. Smith and K. Rubinson (eds.) Archaeology in the Borderlands: Investigations in Caucasia and Beyond, 95-110. Los Angeles, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA.

29

Rothman, M. 2005. Transcaucasians: Settlement, migration, and trade in the Kura-Araxes periods. Archäologische Mitteilungen Aus Iran Und Turan 37, 53-62. Sagona, A. 1984. The Caucasian Region in the Early Bronze Age. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Sagona, A. 1994. The Aşvan Sites 3: Keban Rescue Excavations, Eastern Anatolia, The Early Bronze Age. British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph. Schmidt, K. Norşuntepe: Kleinfunde II. Mainz, Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Schortman, E. and Urban, P. 2004. Modeling the Roles of Craft Production in Ancient Political Economies. Journal of Archaeological Research 12, 185-226. Schwartz, G. 2003. Socio-Political Developments in the Ninevite 5 Period. In E. Rova and H. Weiss (eds.) The Origins of Northern Mesopotamian Civilization: Chronology, Economy and Society, Subartu IX, 585-92. Brepols Publishers. Squadrone, F. F. 2007. Regional culture and metal objects in the area of Carchemish during the Early Bronze

Age. In E. Peltenburg (ed.) Euphrates River Valley Settlement. The Carchemish Sector in the Third Millennium BC, 198-213. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Stein, G. 1999. Rethinking World-Systems: Diasporas, Colonies, and Interaction in Uruk Mesopotamia. Tucson, The University of Arizona Press. Van Loon, M. (ed.) 1978. Korucutepe, Volume 2. Amsterdam, North-Holland Publishing Company. Wilkinson, T. 2000. Settlement and Land Use in the Zone of Uncertainty in Upper Mesopotamia. In R.M. Jas (ed.) Rainfall and Agriculture in Northern Mesopotamia, 3-35. Leiden, Netherlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Wilkinson, T. 2004. On the Margin of the Euphrates: Settlement and Land use at Tell es-Sweyhat and in the Upper Lake Assad Area, Syria. Chicago, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Wilkinson, T. 2007. Archaeological regions in the neighbourhood of Carchemish. In E. Peltenburg (ed.) Euphrates River Valley Settlement: The Carchemish Sector in the Third Millennium BC, 27-42. Oxford, Oxbow Books.

30

31

32