Migration, Diffusion and Emulation: Petrographic Comparisons of Early Transcaucasian and Anatolian Pottery from Malatya-Elazıg, Turkey
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
2170-09_Anes46_09_Schwartz 02-09-2009 09:43 Pagina 138 doi: 10.2143/ANES.45.0.2033161 ANES 46 (2009) 138-159 Migration, Diffusion and Emulation: Petrographic Comparisons of Early Transcaucasian and Anatolian Pottery from Malatya-Elazıg, Turkey Mark SCHWARTZ Department of Anthropology Grand Valley State University 1 Campus Drive Allendale, MI 49401 USA E-mail: [email protected] Katherine ERDMAN Department of Anthropology University of Minnesota 395 Hubert H. Humphrey Center 301 19th Ave S Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA E-mail: [email protected] Melissa MORISON Department of Classics Grand Valley State University 1 Campus Drive Allendale, MI 49401 USA E-mail: [email protected] * This project is part of a larger study organized by Mitchell Rothman of Widener Uni- versity who also made the cultural and stylistic identifications of the pottery used in the 2170-09_Anes46_09_Schwartz 02-09-2009 09:43 Pagina 139 PETROGRAPHIC COMPARISONS 139 Abstract The spread of Early Transcaucasian (ETC) pottery, portable hearths and archi- tecture across a vast swath of the ancient Near East from northeast Anatolia to the southern Levant during the fourth and third millennia BC, has been an issue of intense research and debate. Recently scholars have suggested a combination of factors such as migration of populations, diffusion, and local emulation of foreign styles to explain this cultural phenomenon. One productive way to examine this problem is with an analysis of the chemistry and mineralogy of ETC style pottery to address issues such as geological source, manufacturing techniques and regional differences. This paper presents the results of a petrographic analysis of pottery from Malatya-Elazıg region of Turkey and suggests most ETC style pottery in Anatolia was manufactured locally while a small portion appears to have either been made of imported materials or technology.* Recent Theoretical Approaches to the Early Transcaucasian Question In the fourth and third millennia BC, a unique material culture from Transcaucasia culture including distinct Red-Black Burnished pottery, bone implements, horned animal figurines, metal objects, andiron or portable hearth fragments and unique architectural elements, spread from the region of Georgia and Armenia through northwestern Iran to eastern Anatolia, the Upper Euphrates and the southern Levant.1 Archaeological evidence for this substantial phenomenon2 can be found in areas such as Iran, the Amuq plain, Syria, Palestine, and the “Caspian littoral”.3 Termed Early Transcau- casian Culture (hereafter ETC), also referred to as Kura-Araxes, Karaz or Khirbet Kerak culture, appears to have originated approximately 3500 BC near the Kura and Arax Rivers in the modern countries of Georgia, Arme- nia, and Azerbaijan4 a region with a wide range of environmental variation including mountains, valleys, plateaus, depressions, steppes, and coastal plains.5 The environmental conditions of the area and zooarchaeological remains at several important regional sites support the idea that its fourth millennium BC inhabitants were transhumance pastoralists (rather than analyses. We are greatly indebted to him for initiating and organizing this research. The pot- tery samples were obtained through the generous help of Aynur Özfirat of Van University who provided sherds collected from the survey of Veli Sevin. We are also grateful to profes- sors Jan Brashler of the Anthropology Department, Figen Mekik of the Geology Department, Neal Rogness of the Statistics Consulting Center and Soon Hong of the Statistics Depart- ment of Grand Valley State University for their technical advice. This project was funded by research grants from Grand Valley State University. 1 Kiguradze and Sagona 2003, Sagona 1998. 2 Kohl 2007. 3 Kohl 1992b. 4 Batiuk 2005, Sagona 1984. 5 Kohl 1992a. 2170-09_Anes46_09_Schwartz 02-09-2009 09:43 Pagina 140 140 MARK SCHWARTZ – KATHERINE ERDMAN – MELISSA MORISON nomadic pastoralists),6 traders, and small farmers,7 though it is believed that pastoralism was more prevalent in the region than agriculture.8 While it is possible that large Kura-Araxes settlements might lie under the remains of later settlements, the evidence to date suggests that most ETC settle- ments were less than 5 ha. in size.9 The nature of the spread of ETC culture has been a major avenue of research for anthropologists interested in the development of early complex societies in the Near East. The fundamental question that still remains is the nature of the distribution of these artifacts. Were they a result of a migration of peoples out of the Transcaucasus or were they a product of trade in metallurgical technology and ores? Were artifacts in Anatolia and the Levant made locally by potters emulating foreign styles or by migrants from Transcaucasia? Or have all of these possible scenarios occurred in dif- ferent regions and at different times?10 Several theoretical approaches such as the migration of peoples, trade and diffusion of artifacts and artifact styles, and local emulation or assimi- lation have been used to answer these questions and explain the spread of Early Transcaucasian Culture. Migration, or “the movement of groups or individuals from their living place to another place”,11 can be instigated by negative “push” factors from the migrants’ home region, and by a positive “pulls” toward the destination region.12 These push factors can include such as lack of land, overpopulation, environmental damage, or better economic opportunities elsewhere.13 Often in the case of prehistoric migrations, the push and pull factors are difficult to determine or have disappeared in the archaeological record.14 The idea that Transcaucasian migrations were “an outpouring of barbarians from the North upon a more civilized people from the South”,15 have been discounted because of the lack of evidence for a violent invasion.16 In addition, the development of ETC occurred dur- ing an environmentally optimal period in the Caucasus, not a period of ecological stress.17 It is quite possible that ETC people moved south into 6 Connor and Sagona 2007. 7 Rothman 2003. 8 Kohl 1992b. 9 Kohl 2007. 10 Batiuk and Rothaman 2007. 11 Abay 2005. 12 Batiuk 2005. 13 Burmeister 2000. 14 Anthony 1990. 15 Hood 1951. 16 Smogorzewska 2004. 17 Connor and Sagona 2007. 2170-09_Anes46_09_Schwartz 02-09-2009 09:43 Pagina 141 PETROGRAPHIC COMPARISONS 141 Anatolia because other groups were moving north into the Kura-Araxes region.18 Short distance migrations that occur within a limited geographical set- ting and do not go beyond local areas such as the movements practiced by hunter-gatherers, pastoral herders, unspecialized farmer-stockbreeders, and prehistoric incipient gardeners would leave little archaeological trace.19 Long distance migrations on the other hand, can be clearly detected in the archaeological record because these movements cross ecological and cultural boundaries. Long distance migrations can be characterized using models such as leapfrogging, migration streams, and return migrations20 where typ- ically the number of migrants decreases as migratory distance increases.21 The numerous ETC sites in Transcaucasia and northeastern Anatolia and signs of sudden abandonment of several of theses sites supports the idea of shifting cultivation practices22 and may explain the stimulus for population movement. Recently the discussion of migrations across Anatolia from the Transcau- casus has become more nuanced, seen now as a series of movements as opposed to one massive migration. The ‘ripples in a stream’ approach23 implies that the social organization of the migration groups was divided into ‘segmentary units’, which broke off from a larger population, yet still maintained cultural similarities. These migrations appear to be caused by unexplainable, rapid population growth as well as variations in settlement patterns.24 The actual spread of material culture appears to have been the result of a complex blend of population movement, cultural assimilation and diffusion.25 However, the degree of the spread of ETC does not appear to have been simply the result of geographic distance. Circular houses, hearths, and andirons, are present in the Malatya-Elazıg region of Turkey before they are found in the Van and Mu≥ areas, regions that are closer to the Transcau- casian heartland. Some argue that this can be explained with a ‘leapfrog- ging’ migration model,26 in which ‘islands’ of settlement in desirable or attractive locations, are separated by areas of unsettled, less desirable 18 Kohl 2007. 19 Anthony 1990. 20 Anthony 1990. 21 Burmeister 2000. 22 Kohl 2007. 23 Rothman 2003. 24 Rothman 2003. 25 Rothman 2005. 26 Abay 2005. 2170-09_Anes46_09_Schwartz 02-09-2009 09:43 Pagina 142 142 MARK SCHWARTZ – KATHERINE ERDMAN – MELISSA MORISON regions.27 Malatya-Elazıg was believed to be an attractive area due to its sources of metals, fertile soils, grazing land, and strategic location on trade routes.28 It is interesting that in general, these ETC groups seem to have avoided areas such as large settled areas on the northern Mesopotamian plain.29 As has been argued before, the presence of a material culture does not necessarily represent the presence of an ethnic group.30 Other factors that could have been at work then are trade and emulation. There is the possi- bility that many ETC artifacts in Anatolia were made in Transcaucasia and then traded to other areas, but diffusion of ideas and inventions could also have inspired cultural change,31 without Transcaucasians themselves present. Some