Claroscuro 16 (2017)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Claroscuro 16 (2017) Revista del Centro de Estudios sobre Diversidad Cultural Facultad de Humanidades y Artes Universidad Nacional de Rosario Rosario – Argentina E-mail: [email protected] Título: Otherness and interaction in copper metallurgy in the Chalcolithic of the Southern Levant: the Transcaucasian connection Autor(es): Bernardo Gandulla y Pablo Jaruf Fuente: Claroscuro, Año 16, Vol. 16 (Diciembre 2017), pp. 1-22. Publicado por: Portal de publicaciones científicas y técnicas (PPCT) - Centro Argentino de Información Científica y Tecnológica (CAYCIT) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) URL: http://ppct.caicyt.gov.ar/index.php/claroscuro/ Claroscuro cuenta con una licencia Creative Commons de Atribución No Comercial Sin Derivadas 3.0 ISSN 2314-0542 (en línea) Más info: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.es Los autores retienen sus derechos de usar su trabajo para propósitos educacionales, públicos o privados. Claroscuro Nº 16 (2017) Centro de Estudios sobre Diversidad Cultural Otherness and interaction in copper metallurgy in the Chalcolithic of the Southern Levant: the Transcaucasian connection Alteridad e interacción en la metalurgia del cobre durante el Calcolítico del Levante meridional: la conexión transcaucásica Bernardo Gandulla* and Pablo Jaruf** Resumen Los estudios sobre la metalurgia del cobre en el período Calcolítico del Levante meridional (ca. 4500-3800/3600 a.C.) han determinado que habrían coexistido dos técnicas de producción: una de molde abierto, localizada en el valle de Beersheba, que utilizaba cobre puro proveniente de las minas de Feinan, Jordania, y otra con la técnica de la cera perdida, que utilizaba cobre arsenical proveniente de la región del Transcáucaso o Anatolia oriental, cuyos sitios de producción todavía se desconocen, pero se sugiere que pudieron estar en la Sefelá o en el Desierto de Judea. Dos tercios del total de los objetos de cobre conocidos para este período corresponden a la segunda técnica, y fueron hallados en un solo sitio: una cueva en Nahal Mishmar, cerca del Mar Muerto. Nuestra hipótesis, considerando la falta de evidencias sobre intercambio entre el Levante meridional y el Transcáucaso o Anatolia oriental, es que los metalurgistas debieron provenir de esta última región, trayendo consigo los minerales. En su interacción con las poblaciones nativas, este grupo habría buscado su integración, copiando objetos y motivos iconográficos locales, pero sin perder por ello su identidad etnocultural, la cual expresaron por medio del empleo de un material foráneo y una tecnología novedosa. Palabras clave Levante meridional – período Calcolítico – metalurgia del cobre – alteridad – interacción * University of Buenos Aires, Ph.D in History, Director of the “Dr. André Finet” Course in Canaanean Studies at the School of Philosophy and Literature of the University of Buenos Aires. E-mail: [email protected] ** University of Buenos Aires, Ph.D in History, E-mail: [email protected] GANDULLA, Bernardo and JARUF, Pablo (2017) “Otherness and interaction in copper metallurgy in the Chalcolithic of the Southern Levant: the Transcaucasian connection”, Claroscuro. Revista del Centro de Estudios sobre Diversidad Cultural 16: 1-22. Recibido: 10 de Marzo de 2017 Aceptado: 26 de Julio de 2017 1 Otherness and interaction in copper… Gandulla and Jaruf Abstract Studies in copper metallurgy during the Chalcolithic period in the Southern Levant (ca. 4500-3800/3600 B.C.E.) have determined that two production techniques seem to have coexisted: the open mould technique, located in Beersheba valley, which used pure copper from the Faynan mines, Jordan, and the lost wax technique, which used arsenical copper from the Transcaucasus region or Eastern Anatolia, whose production sites are still unknown. Two-thirds of the total amount of copper objects pertaining to this period were cast using the second technique and were found in a single site: a cave in Nahal Mishmar, near the Dead Sea. Our hypothesis, considering the lack of evidence regarding exchange between the Southern Levant and the Transcaucasus or Eastern Anatolia, is that metallurgists must have come from this last region bringing the minerals with them. In their interaction with native populations, the members of this group would have tried to achieve their integration by copying local objects and iconographic motifs but without losing their ethnocultural identity, which they expressed through the use of a foreign material and a new technology. Keywords Southern Levant –Chalcolithic period – copper metallurgy – otherness – interaction Introduction The Chalcolithic period of the Southern Levant (ca. 4500-3800/3600 B.C.E.) can be approached from many angles (e.g. Rowan & Golden 2009) that show the imprecise character of this period, typical of transition stages of socio-economic formations such as Neolithic village communities and Early Bronze proto-urban societies (Cf. Ben-Tor 1992; Levy 1995a; Mazar 1992; Steiner & Killebrew 2014) (Fig. 1). This vagueness envelops the whole period and its cultural production, and is the cause – from a neo- evolutionistic point of view – of controversial interpretations that attempt to provide precise definitions of matters that still cannot be explained clearly. This situation is particularly emphasized regarding the presumed social organization (e.g. Gilead 1988, 1993, 2002; Joffe 2003; Joffe et al. 2001; Levy 1995b, 2007). In this respect, we share Bourke’s cautious remark when he states that it would be “…premature to do more than sketch the basest outline of Chalcolithic social organization, at present (...) We can do no more than describe changes from Neolithic norms, and (with 2 Claroscuro Nº 16 (2017) Centro de Estudios sobre Diversidad Cultural less confidence) begin to identify potential agencies in such change. Our ignorance of Early Chalcolithic norms is profound.” (Bourke 2008: 145). Fig. 1 Map of the Southern Levant with the main sites mentioned in the article (adapted from Rowan & Golden 2009: Fig. 1). Aside from this general problem, there are other important aspects that must be given due consideration such as the artifacts manufactured in complex metals (Fig. 2), alongside artifacts in pure copper which suggest evidence of cultural diversity in the archaeological record. Our concern will be to offer an alternative approach regarding the so-called “hoard” of Nahal Mishmar (Bar-Adon 1980). With this aim we will try to answer two questions: a) Which could have been the most probable origin of the 3 Otherness and interaction in copper… Gandulla and Jaruf “hoard” and its producers? and b) What could have been its sociocultural significance in the context of the Southern Levantine Chalcolithic? Fig. 2 Objects of arsenical copper from the “hoard” of Nahal Mishmar: a) axe nº 163 (adapted from Bar-Adon 1980: 112); b) mace-heads nº 210-211-213-214 (adapted from Bar-Adon 1980: 122); c) standard nº 153 (adapted from Beck 1989: Fig. 7.c); d) “crown” nº 7 (illustration by Sol Capilla); e) “crown” nº 9 (adapted from Bar-Adon 1980: 30); f) standard nº 19 (adapted from Moorey 1988: Fig. 6.a); g) eagle standard nº 154 (adapted from Beck 1989: Fig. 8.c). Otherness and cultural interaction As a methodological framework, we intend to use a holistic approach for otherness and cultural interaction problems as a possible way to produce an alternative – albeit conjectural - interpretation of the topic. To answer the above questions, we must appeal, on one hand, to the world of “pseudo-concretion” (Kosík 1967) and on the other hand to the ideological nature of signs (Voloshinov [Bakhtin] 1973). The world of pseudo-concretion – as K. Kosík points out – is a chiaroscuro of truth and deceit. Its characteristic element is its twofold sense: “the phenomenon conceals the essence even as it reveals it. The 4 Claroscuro Nº 16 (2017) Centro de Estudios sobre Diversidad Cultural essence manifests itself in the phenomenon, but only to a certain extent, partially” (Kosík 1967: 2). Essence is mediatized by the phenomenon and it is shown, therefore, in something different from what it is. The world of signs – says V. Voloshinov – coexists with the phenomena of nature, technical objects and consumption products. The sign not only exists as part of nature but also reflects and refracts it. “The domain of ideology coincides with the domain of signs […] wherever a sign is present, ideology is present, too” (Voloshinov 1973: 10). “Signs emerge, after all, only in the process of interaction between one individual consciousness and another. And the individual consciousness itself is filled with signs” (Voloshinov 1973: 11). A binary logic, an us / them, operates in the dialectics of otherness; an external them that is “opposed” to an internal us. In this way, the “cultural us” becomes a negative definition: the enunciation of what the other cultures are not (Severi 2010). But this binary logic – that appears as a dialectical contradiction – overcomes this opposition in a social interplay of reciprocal integration. Therefore, the function of the other in the building of identity does not boil down to opposition and contrast though this may be one of its primary functions (García 2006). Therefore, human relational and social aspects emanate directly from otherness, and this in turn explains the central role that human social environment plays in terms of promoting human development and modernization (Nuévalos Ruiz 2010: 388-389). Since the discovery of more than 400 copper