SPECIAL FEATURE: PERSPECTIVE PERSPECTIVE SPECIAL FEATURE: Different types of multiethnic societies and different patterns of development and change in the prehistoric Near East Marcella Frangipane1 Department of Antiquities, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy

Edited by Linda R. Manzanilla, Universidad Nacional Autonóma de México, Mexico City, D.F., Mexico, and approved April 28, 2015 (received for review December 15, 2014)

After briefly examining the forms of cultural contact in pre- and protohistoric societies in relation to the problem of the varying perception of territories and their “borders” as well as of “membership” in those societies, and after a brief reconsideration of the concept of culture and ethnicity in such archaic contexts, this paper then examines three examples of multiethnic societies in the Near East, and specifically in Upper Mesopotamia and Southeast Anatolia, in the fifth, fourth, and at the beginning of the third millennia before the common era (BCE), re- spectively. These examples are dealt with as emblematic cases of different models of society, types of interaction with alien groups, levels of integration, and development dynamics. Each of these cases is examined with respect to its socioeconomic context, the archeological evidence of “multiethnicity,” the types of interaction between different components, the degree of cultural integration achieved, and the effects on the dynamics of change and the development of the societies examined. By analyzing and comparing these examples, the paper aims to show how interethnic contact impacted differently on different societies according to their types, the reasons and purposes of the interaction, and the degree of integration achieved.

intercultural contact | economic integration | cultural integration | Upper Mesopotamia | East Anatolia

Intercultural contacts and community intera- Examining and interpreting the dynamics The flexibility of boundaries in prestate ctions not only are well-attested in archaeol- and effects of cultural contacts in archaeology societies was probably one of the main ogy, but also have often been the main focus involve several questions, such as the inves- conditions for the constant and widespread of interest by scholars. One of the main tigation of the directions of the cultural movements of individuals and groups, which reasons why these phenomena have acquired transmission and the understanding of the are well-attested in several pre- and pro- such importance in archaeological research is creation of meaning and attribution of value tohistoric societies in various regions of the that the dynamics of cultural transmission to “imported” features in the context of a new Near East. The very wide circulation of have indeed been one of the main drivers of society (8). objects and materials and the appearance of processes of change (1). Also equally important is the question of culturally hybrid features may have been the Different schools of anthropology have the geographical boundaries of the cultural/ result of a variety of forms and ways of variously explained cultural contacts by em- ethnic entities coming into contact. These contact, ranging from repeated or occasional phasizing either population movements or boundaries were, in my opinion, attenuated events—meetings, feasting, etc.—to perma- interaction spheres and hybridization, tech- and flexible in prestate and early-state soci- nent shifts of some people into new regions, nological transfer, or exchange and trade. In eties, when political territories and borders such as those brought about by village “fis- particular, theories stressing trade-oriented had not yet been precisely established (9, 10). sion” mechanisms, large-scale exogamic “expansion” and cultural permeation have In these societies, the individual and group marriage rules, or other forms of group de- dominated the debate in recent decades, identities may have been more related to tachment from their original motherland. their social and cultural affinities (belonging and relations between differently complex so- Phenomena of these kinds are very evident to tribes, villages, kinship groups, clans, etc.) cieties have been considered as prime movers in the Mesopotamian environment in the than to territories with precisely defined bor- for the development of pivotal phenomena, seventh to sixth and fifth millennia before ders. Even though there must have certainly such as the emergence of state and urban the common era (BCE): They can be inferred existed important relations with the land “ societies (2–7). The world-system model has from the wide dissemination of some cultur- where a community lived and produced its ally identifying” objects (painted vessels with been applied to early societies, being based on subsistence—which was probably also per- the theoretical assumption that unequal and well-defined styles and iconographies and ceived as one of the features of their iden- other types of symbolically significant unbalanced trade relations between different tity—I suggest that the “borders” of these ethnic groups necessarily result in the acqui- exhibited pottery, figurines, and items rich territories were not exactly designed before in symbolic meaning), which crossed sev- sition of the dominant group model by all of some kind of political, and economic, central- the communities involved in the relationship. eral and sometimes distant territories, not as ization arose, bringing about needs to pre- the result of “trade,” in the seventh to fifth This approach does not sufficiently account cisely define the limits of the territory from for the variety and complexity of the dy- which the central authorities had the right to namics of contacts and mingling among extract surpluses and labor. Only then the Author contributions: M.F. wrote the paper. prehistoric communities, which depend on identity of groups probably began to be related The author declares no conflict of interest. the different social and economic structures to precisely delimited “political spaces”—cities, This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. and needs of the populations involved. regions, institution spheres. 1Email: [email protected].

www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1419883112 PNAS Early Edition | 1of8 Downloaded by guest on October 2, 2021 millennia BCE (10–13). Different in nature the same society and/or region means recog- new features that closely recall another cul- were the contacts attested by the presence nizing self-perceived different group identi- ture (“Ubaid”) in Southern Mesopotamia. of “colonial” settlements and alien group in- ties and their material expressions. Northern and Southern Mesopotamia had trusions in various sites of Upper Mesopota- Another important aspect is to distinguish, been characterized by deeply different types mia and along the Middle Euphrates in the in the cases of cultural mingling, when and of societies in the sixth millennium BCE, al- fourth millennium BCE (3, 5, 14–16). how long the self-awareness of the differences beit linked to each other by repeated and Many of these phenomena led to the was maintained: In other words, when does a continuous relations and contacts over more creation of hybrid or “multicultural” societies. “multiethnic” (or multicultural) society per- than two millennia (21). The novelties ob- But the question one has to ask when ceive itself as such? Were the differences that served in fifth millennium societies are rec- trying to recognize the possible different we observe in the material culture consciously ognizable in various aspects of the material groups coming into contact is how we can exhibited expressions of a group identity? culture—new types of domestic architecture, define them: Were they different ethnic The first thing to establish is whether a group, village arrangements, public buildings, pot- groups? What does the word “ethnic” mean? while manifesting cultural features of differ- tery, and other daily life objects—that in- And what perception did these groups have ent origins, symbolically tends to emphasize dicate that the transformation also affected of themselves and of their diversity? or minimize them. The differences may be the communities’ social, economic, and or- The relation between ethnicity and culture annulled as the result of a powerful process ganizational structure. This change was so in the study of societies of archaeological of integration, whose outcome can be either all-encompassing that the final effect of the interest is one of the most complex issues, the hybridization of the two cultures or the process was the “disappearance” of the cul- particularly when the analysis has to depend supremacy of one over the other, with the ture and way of life of the Halaf commu- exclusively on sources of material culture, as effect of doing away with the original multi- nities that had occupied those areas for is the case with prehistoric societies. But, in cultural situation. The community self-per- more than one millennium. recent times, some authors have correctly ception can therefore change over time by How and why did this far-reaching change shown that such a difference is of subtle or incorporating original multiple identities take place? How long did this process last? negligible importance, if not nonexistent (17– into one. What does the disappearance of the Halaf 19). Ethnic identity, as Herring has pointed The third crucial aspect of the problem we culture mean? Is there any evidence of a out, is a “construction”: “Societies create cus- are addressing here is the role played by the mixing of different cultural groups, and what toms, traditions, and myths to bolster and various forms of interaction and cultural was the nature of the hybridization process? legitimize a sense of belonging” (ref. 19, integration in the social change that possibly To thoroughly understand the dimension p. 132). This statement means that “ashared occurred in the communities involved. of this phenomenon, one must start by ex- cultural background can create the percep- We are now going to examine some amining the main features characterizing the tion of an ethnic identity” and also implies examples of prehistoric Near Eastern soci- Halaf societies and comparing them with the that this identity is “a flexible construction” eties that we can consider as being wholly characteristics of the new society. The sixth that can change over time. Looking at the C. or partly multiethnic, each characterized millennium communities occupying Upper Renfrew statements about ethnicity (20), he by different patterns of interaction and de- Mesopotamia and its neighborhoods were uses a multifactor definition including shared grees of integration. We will try to highlight small or very small communities spread over culture (community of customs and beliefs), the peculiarities and the differences, as well as a very vast territory incorporating different religion, common descent, shared history the different impacts these various modes of environments, from the wide steppe of Jezira (that means shared memory and myths), a interaction had on the processes of social and to the mountainous regions of Eastern Ana- shared language and name, and a shared ter- cultural change. tolia (Fig. 1). The villages consisted of scat- ritory (ref. 20, p. 130). (I would consider all tered round houses with secondary small these factors as part of a “culture.”)Butthe Some Cases of Possible Multiethnic structures dispersed in the open areas be- most important factor in this same concept is Societies in the Prehistory of the Near tween the main buildings (Fig. 2A). It is very self-awareness: as he states, “Ethnicity is what East: A Comparison difficult, judging from the ground plans of a people believe it to be”. The cases we will be examining here refer to the few extensively excavated Halaf villages, Ethnicity is therefore the construction of a different periods and areas of the Near East to recognize individual family spaces because common identity based on the perception of and to different categories of “diversity” of the the domestic activities seem to have been common origin, history, traditions, beliefs, groups that came into contact. Each of these carried out in the open spaces, probably customs, institutions, and possibly language. cases is emblematic, in its own way, of largely shared, or in structures showing no (A historically variable aspect is, in my different modalities, motivations, and ef- clear connection with individual houses. opinion, the shared “territory.”)Inother fects of contact, and thus offer the oppor- No clear definition of the “family areas” is word, it overlaps with culture; and, as culture, tunity to analyze the social and cultural therefore recognizable in the Halaf settle- ethnicity may have a certain degree of dyna- impact of different forms of contact and ments, and a socio-economic structure based mism over time. The main difference I see in perhaps ethnic mixing. on larger groups (kinship groups or clans), the use of the two concepts is that, when we probably coinciding with the villages, seems use the term “ethnicity,” we do explicit refer- Multiethnic Societies in Fifth Millennium to have characterized these communities (ref. ence to the awareness of the sense of belong- Northern Mesopotamia? The Ubaid Impact 21 and ref. 22, pp. 27–35). ing of a group. on Halaf Societies. The first case I would like This picture is well in keeping with the The main problem is therefore not so to consider here concerns the societies living settlement patterns and the subsistence econ- much to recognize the difference between in Upper Mesopotamia in the fifth millen- omy of these societies. The Halaf villages “ethnicities’ and “cultures” in archaeology, nium BCE. Here, the archaeological data were usually grouped into small neighbor- but rather to identify, on the basis of avail- available reveal societies that had been pro- ing settlements, which often seem not to able data, the “cultural identities” and their foundly changed from those that had occu- have been occupied simultaneously, with archaeological correlates. Thus, recognizing pied the same area in the previous millennium the population shifting from one to another possible coexisting ethnic groups in one and (the so-called “Halaf” communities), showing in the course of time, sometimes reflecting

2of8 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1419883112 Frangipane Downloaded by guest on October 2, 2021 the Neolithic communal storehouses in this PERSPECTIVE same region (25)—were concentrated in SPECIAL FEATURE: temples and some houses. The changed function of sealing practices is very signif- icant: They ceased to be used for regulating forms of collective redistribution in egali- tarian contexts and rather became an in- strument of control over the circulation of goods in prestige and somehow unequal circuits (29, 30). Indeed, the sealing of the containers kept in the houses suggests un- equal economic relations between the fami- lies. [The seal was applied by the individual who withdrew the goods (29); therefore, the sealings in the Ubaid houses very probably indicate redistribution (compensations, or rewards for work?) to members of other families.] The growth of unequal relations in north- ern societies was something completely alien to the local Halaf socioeconomic system, Fig. 1. Map of the Near East with the main cultural areas and sites mentioned in the text. whose reproduction seems to have been guaranteed for a long time by the perfect working of some leveling devices, such as, an integrated modular system of occupa- Mesopotamian type—although with some — perhaps, the fission of communities to tion or suggesting more general community local peculiarities and, as in Southern maintain the small dimension of villages, or segmentation processes (23, 24). The ar- Mesopotamia, they were probably related to B–D the collective storage and redistribution chaeological data recovered in the Halaf large families (Fig. 2 ). The perimeter of practices, which had been very effective to sites, as in the previous Neolithic commu- the house space was well-defined, and the maintain egalitarian relationships for almost nities of the Jezira, reveal the integration of open areas now marked a symbolic separa- two millennia. It is possible, or even probable, various activities (agriculture, animal rearing, tion between the households, instead of being that the Halaf societies went into crisis at the hunting), probably conducted by groups or a “unifying” space for common activities. The “ ” very end of the sixth millennium BCE, due sectors of the population on a seasonal basis, family seems to have been the basic social to their remarkable demographic and geo- in a kind of community specialization that and economic unit. graphical expansion, which may have met may have required the products to be redis- We may hypothesize that the subsistence social and environmental constraints. The tributed and circulated widely in a sort of economy also changed toward a less varied possible adoption of new sociopolitical mod- regional integrated system. The existence of and more agriculturally oriented production els from Southern Mesopotamia may have such a system is supported by the presence in system, as suggested by the more stable sed- therefore been an answer to this crisis. various settlements of large multicell build- entary population and the slightly larger But, how might they have been introduced? ings used as communal storehouses (25, 26). sites (although their size is not comparable Andhowdidthephysicalcontactandinter- No religious or ceremonial buildings have with those of the contemporary southern action between the two cultures take place? been found in these villages, and no evidence settlements). Thereissomeevidencetosuggestthatthe of a hierarchically structured society is rec- The society seems to have ceased being powerful interference from Southern Meso- ognizable, either in the settlements or in totally egalitarian. A temple area with tri- potamian cultures in the life of northern burial customs. All of the evidence therefore partite buildings similar to the Southern communities was largely due to the move- suggests that the seventh and sixth millennia Mesopotamian temples even in the deco- mentsnorthwardsofsomepeople,perhapsin communities of Upper Mesopotamia were ration of the walls with pillars and recessed small groups, for some reasons settling in new markedly egalitarian. niches dominated the settlement in the late areas, or even sites, formerly occupied by the The change observed in Northern Meso- Ubaid phase at Tepe Gawra, in level XIII Halaf groups, with whom the southern com- E F potamia and beyond in the fifth millennium (Fig. 2 and ) whereas one special house munities had traditionally had capillary and BCE is striking and accompanied by the in- (the so-called “white room”) stood out on continuous relations for a long time. This long troduction of several new elements of mate- account of its larger dimensions, carefully interaction may have facilitated the contact rial culture of southern origin, as well as by plastered walls, concentration of infant burials, and the mutual acceptance of the two groups. totally new types of settlement and social and the numerous seals and sealings found in But, how did the two societies mingle and organization. its area in the level XII village (Fig. 2D). An assimilate each other to the point that the old One of the best-known sites where the emergent hierarchy therefore seems to have local culture seems to have disappeared? change has been documented fairly well is appeared in this site, probably linked to the The evidence of population movements and Tepe Gawra, a site extensively excavated in management of worship, temple activities, mixing. Interesting archaeological evidence of past times in eastern Upper Mesopotamia and redistribution, as was also the case in a possible physical movement of people from (27, 28), where new architectural models and Lower Mesopotamia. the South is again recognizable at Gawra: In new types of pottery and other artifacts, all A certain emergent elite at least partly one of the earliest fifth millennium levels reminiscent of southern types, emerged to- controlling the circulation of staple products (level XV), two tripartite buildings have been gether with a wholly new society. The houses is suggested by the fact that redistribution unearthed that show the same layout as the were no longer round but were large rect- practices, indicated by the rich assemblages of houses found in the Hamrin valley, further angular multiroomed “tripartite” houses of a seals and sealings—a tool previously used in south (31) (Fig. 2 B and C). Considering that

Frangipane PNAS Early Edition | 3of8 Downloaded by guest on October 2, 2021 practices were therefore both a development of northern traits in the new hybrid society to answer the needs brought about by the emerging forms of social, and embryonically economic inequality. Only afterward were sealing practices also adopted in Southern MesopotamiaandSusianaattheveryendof the fifth millennium BCE whereas soon after- ward the mass production of bowls—although with various manufacturing techniques— spread over a very wide area and became one of the most distinctive feature of Late Chal- colithic societies in the whole Greater Meso- potamia and beyond. The mingling and hybridization of the two cultures in Upper Mesopotamia therefore seems to have pro- duced innovations that also spread north– south, opposite to the way previously taken by the main direction of cultural transmission. A highly integrated multicultural society in fifth millennium Upper Mesopotamia: Its causes and developmental potential. The intercultural interaction achieved a high de- gree of integration in Upper Mesopotamia and Southeast Anatolia, in which the new southern-inspired sociopolitical models adopted in the course of the fifth millennium BCE totally prevailed on the local one, rad- ically transforming it. This predominance was probably due to the local communities’ structural weakness and systemic crisis when encountering the southern groups, and, on the other hand, to the capacity of the latter to Fig. 2. Halaf and Ubaid villages and architecture (A–F); pottery examples from Northern and Southern Mesopotamia (G). impose their model of social relationships, which may have been perceived as successful and capable to offer efficacious solutions to “ ” the house is a social construct reflecting the region. In all these sites, as well as at the later the problems suffered by the Halaf society. profound nature of the family structure, Degirmentepe˘ in the Upper Euphrates valley The disappearance, at least as we may see needs, and activity, and is not therefore (36), the new cultural traits seem to have it, of the indigenous Halaf culture, its sub- possible to be imitated, the similarity is so been, to some extent, reelaborated and sistence modes, and organization system striking and this house layout so lacking in adapted to local traditions, thereby re- seems to have been the result not only of an local roots that one might hypothesize that vealing, more clearly than in the eastern emulation of foreign cultural components, the presence of these two houses is an in- sites, the hybrid nature of the new culture but of having adopted the structural and so- dication of the possible arrival of foreign and the possible varied modes and effects cial relational models of the southern neigh- groups who settled at the site. of the contact and interaction with the bors, with whom they must have come into The pottery also shows a fairly radical southern components (37). systemic contact. This phenomenon caused a change: It was still, although less frequently, Various northern elements have also been profound and radical change in the society as painted, but in the new Ubaid style (Fig. 2G). readapted to the needs of the new society, a whole, even in areas, such as the more And the presence in some sites of eastern and new features emerged. The use of seals peripheral regions of Cilicia and ’Amuq, Jezira of sherds with Halaf decoration and and sealing practices, introduced in the North where the adoption of formal elements had Ubaid manufacture techniques side by side in nonhierarchical contexts, was adopted by been less thorough and extensive. The long with sherds of Halaf ware decorated in the the new emerging high status families, who, process of interaction and integration brought Ubaid style, may suggest a long period of recognizing its potential as an effective means about far-reaching development with a high cohabitation of people belonging to the two of control, transferred it to a new social en- capacity for expansion and created new types groups and imitating each other. vironment, thereby changing its social and of socioeconomic relations full of conse- Other sites on the western and northern economic function from “equality maintainer” quences and potential for the future. borders of Upper Mesopotamia—T. Kosak to “inequality promoter.” An important local Shamali, Tell el Abr, Kenan Tepe, Domuztepe achievement was also the development of the Multiethnic Connections in Early Cen- (32–35)—although less extensively inves- earliest mass-produced bowls—the so-called tralized Societies: The Case of Arslan- tigated, have also revealed a fifth millennium “coba bowls”—which gave rise to a special tepe in Eastern Anatolia Between the occupation dating back to the beginning of production for feeding increasing numbers Fourth and Third Millennia BCE. The case the period, thus proving the contemporary of people in both ceremonial and daily life dealt with here radically differs from the introduction of the new Ubaid-related cul- practices, probably in exchange for their labor. previous example but is equally meaningful tural elements in the whole of the northern Mass-produced bowls and the use of sealing and emblematic. It reveals the wide-ranging

4of8 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1419883112 Frangipane Downloaded by guest on October 2, 2021 relations that nascent state formations estab- mountain peoples, probably specialized pas- Anatolia (Fig. 3C) (48, 49). (v) These changes PERSPECTIVE lished with other communities to incorporate toralists (45). were accompanied with a significant devel- SPECIAL FEATURE: them into the economic circuits that they Itwaswiththeselattergroupsthatcom- opment of metallurgy, with the production themselves governed, thereby broadening plex dynamics of interethnic relations were of weapons and highly sophisticated objects their range of action. Centralized economic established. using copper-arsenic “alloys” obtained from and political systems frequently tended to Incorporating pastoral components into an polymetallic ores, which are abundantly found expand in various geographic and historical economic system governed by central elites: in the mountains of Northern and North- contexts, as somehow intrinsically “neces- Arslantepe at the end of the fourth millen- eastern Anatolia and Southern Caucasus (Fig. sary” for their reproduction. Particularly in nium. At the end of the fourth millennium 3E)(50,51). BCE [Late Chalcolithic (LC) 5] (ref. 14, pp. their formative phases, such systems were Thefirsttwochangesaretobeascribedto 5–13), the centralization process at Arslan- mainly based on the accumulation of staple the intensified relations established with the tepe led to the construction of a monumental goods and labor, which, together with re- Mesopotamian world, of which Arslantepe complex of public and elite buildings (Fig. seems to have been a partner interacting on distribution practices, constituted the basis 3A) in which a highly developed and so- of their way of operating. The first forms of an equal footing. This privileged relationship phisticated administrative system was used certainly led the local elites to emulate their central government must therefore have to control economic transactions, essentially tended to expand to take in the territories southern neighbors, probably considered to based on the accumulation and redistribution be very powerful, without, however, un- and/or the productive components from of food to large sections of the population which they derived their resources and their dergoing any kind of cultural, and certainly (29). This radical transformation of the public not political, submission, and without any social base, while at the same time attract- areafromthetemplearchitectureofthepre- ing the populations gravitating around evidence of ethnic cohabitation and mixing. vious period into a fully fledged multifunc- The other three new features were related them, by offering them guaranteed outlets tional palatial complex, which also comprised to each other and all together suggest a dif- for their products and easier conditions for the residences of the elite, was an extraordi- ferent type of interaction with the commu- trade and mutual relations. nary and somehow precocious achievement nities of the northern mountainous regions. The Uruk period (fourth millennium BCE) in the process of state formation (44). These communities must have been trans- in the broader Mesopotamian world was a What is most important for our purposes humant pastoralist populations moving along time in which these forms of centralized po- here is the fact that many of the changes the mountain range to the north of Arslantepe, litical, economic, and administrative systems observable in the archeological materials at perhaps coming down on a seasonal basis to underwent primary development, some- Arslantepe in LC5 relate to different cultural the Euphrates Valley, where they could cer- times accompanied by a remarkable process environments, thereby suggesting that the tainly find outlets for their products and in- of urbanization (38–42). In connection with external relations of the site expanded widely teresting opportunities to relate to the emerging these developments, there is a great deal of in various directions. (i) Pottery production early-state centers. These centers must have archaeological evidence of the expansion radically changed, borrowing models, tastes, interacted with them from a position of of interregional relations on a large scale, and partially repertoire and manufacturing strength, steering relations to their own benefit encompassing a very wide area, running techniques from the Late Uruk culture of and incorporating the pastoralist groups into from the Persian Gulf to the mountains of the Mesopotamian world, while at the same time preserving certain aspects of the local the centralized economic system. Eastern Anatolia and beyond. But this ex- Specialized sheep pastoralism was certainly pansion was not only the result of the drive to tradition, which set apart Arslantepe from D ii also a distinctive feature of the whole urbanized expand the developed South toward a less the southern centers (Fig. 3 ). ( )Asinall Mesopotamian-related regions, the mass Uruk world (52). But the fact that, on the one urbanized North, as some have suggested (3, hand, Arslantepe was not an urban context, 4, 42), but it was the result of the general production of bowls used for the redistri- bution of food developed enormously both and, on the other, the extraordinary increase in trend in every center to interact very closely sheep rearing on the site was accompanied by with other populations, who were somehow in number and technology, but, unlike Mesopotamia, the Arslantepe potters used the emergence of Red-Black ware, alien to the interfering in their sphere of action. local tradition and much more similar to One very clear and well-documented only the wheel to produce items that, once again, while resembling the southern so- north-central Anatolian examples, suggests that example of the complexity and variety of called flower pots, possess distinctive fea- the development of sheep rearing on the site these relations is the case of Arslantepe, in tures of their own. (iii) A profound change was due to the involvement of external pasto- the Malatya plain, in the Anatolian Upper occurred in livestock rearing, with an ex- ralist groups coming from the north, who were Euphrates. This site was a regional center traordinary increase in sheep and goats, incorporated as a specialized productive com- lying on the borderline between different particularly sheep, which accounted for ponent into the economic system governed by cultural worlds and geographic environments almost 80% of the domesticated species whereas the Arslantepe elites. The great development of and, in the latter half of the fourth millen- pigs disappeared almost completely (Fig. metallurgy at the end of the fourth millennium nium, established wide-ranging relations with 3B). This change shows the dominance of and the close similarity between the metal ob- culturally different components. This center specialized pastoralism probably linked to jectsfoundinthepalaceandthoseproduced “ ” developed a powerful early palatial cen- the use of byproducts (dairy products and by the pastoralist communities, which would tralized system in this period, similar, in wool), even though the finding of sub- subsequently settle on the site after the col- its basic functioning, to the contemporary stantial quantities of bones disposed of as lapse of the centralized system at the begin- Mesopotamian systems, with which it shared food waste shows that these animals were ning of the third millennium BCE (Fig. 3F), a number of general structural features, al- also widely used for their meat (46, 47). may moreover suggest that the pastoral though with a great deal of highly original (iv) There was the appearance in the pottery groups frequenting the palace, coming from traits of its own (43, 44). But at the same repertoire of a class of hand-made red-black zones rich in metal ores, also brought metals time, there is a good archaeological evidence ware of a type that was completely alien to and their technologies. indicating that Arslantepe also established the local traditions and very closely resembled The fairly sudden appearance of a Central wide-ranging relations with the Anatolian the contemporary pottery of north-central Anatolian-like red-black ware and its very

Frangipane PNAS Early Edition | 5of8 Downloaded by guest on October 2, 2021 Fig. 3. Arslantepe. (A) The palatial complex. (B) Animal breeding patterns. (C–E) Materials from the Late Chalcolithic (palace period). (F and G) Materials from the Early Bronze I (post-palace period).

different manufacture technology at the end drinking) and high-stemmed bowls (for cer- ware and the wheel-made light-colored pot- of LC4, and its regular, although minor, use emonial use), suggest that other groups pro- tery in the Uruk tradition, both emblems of in the palace buildings, almost exclusively in ducing this pottery frequented the public area different worlds and with a powerful sym- the form of table vessels (for eating and on a regular basis. The cooccurrence of this bolic-identity value, reveals the desire of the

6of8 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1419883112 Frangipane Downloaded by guest on October 2, 2021 different groups operating in the palace to aesthetic design of the surfaces’ colors seem or cultural mixing, but, on the contrary, PERSPECTIVE keep their identity visible, evidencing a cer- very similar to the previous period. relations between the two groups were SPECIAL FEATURE: tain degree of self-awareness and suggesting a The various itinerant pastoralist groups marked by episodes of evident conflict. multiethnic composition of the population may well have traveled along the mountain present in the Malatya plain at the end of the chains of Northern Anatolia and the Cauca- Discussion fourth millennium BCE. Integrating different sus in various directions, from West to East The cases of cultural mixing and the forma- productive components of diverse origins and vice versa, and may have met in the tion of multicultural societies examined here and cultures into a centrally governed eco- Upper Euphrates valley, attracted by the early are obviously not the only ones in the pre- nomic system did not therefore wipe out the state center of Arslantepe and the network of historic Near East. But they have been selected identity, features, and recognizability of the relations that the Euphrates populations because they are emblematic of different groups concerned, which, on the contrary, established with the Mesopotamian world models of interaction and development. They seem to have emphasized their diversity also (Fig. 1). One may assume that, whereas in the indeed belonged to different sociopolitical and in practices performed inside the buildings in fourth millennium the westernmost groups economic contexts, showed types of possible the palace complex. Moreover, the great va- were the prevailing component in the Upper interethnic contacts with differing causes and riety of the iconographies and styles shown Euphrates valley and were kept under control purposes, gave rise to different degrees of by the seal designs used in the palace, which andincorporatedintothecentralizedeco- mixing and integration by the communities is unique in Near Eastern glyptic assemblages nomic system, in the third millennium, com- coming into contact, and had divergent ca- (53), suggests that these varied motifs and pacities to drive change. (i) The first case munities mostly linked to the northeastern — styles probably identified various compo- groups expanded westwards and southwards described namely, the meeting between nents that, through them, represented them- groups of southern Ubaid culture and local directly occupying the valley and its main site, — selves and their different identity in the ad- and filling the power vacuum left by the col- Halaf communities in Upper Mesopotamia was that of a model of interaction between ministrative environment. lapseoftheearly-statesystem. an organizationally “dominant” foreign com- Cohabiting and competing populations in the At Arslantepe, these seasonal pastoral oc- munity and a local community in crisis. The absence of political and economic centrali- cupations were supplanted slightly afterward, zation: Arslantepe in the early third millen- effect was a radical hybridization of the two around 2,800 BCE, by a new rural village nium BCE. Around 3,000 BCE, the centralized cultures, with the substantial acquisition of with mud brick houses and pottery belonging and early-state system at Arslantepe went the main features of the alien model and the to the post Uruk tradition harking back to into crisis and collapsed. The palace complex virtual disappearance of the local culture and the previous palace productions. The evidence was destroyed by a violent fire, never to be wayoflife.Theresultwasastructuralchange, indicates an alternation of the two cultures on rebuilt. The hierarchical Mesopotamian-type developing toward a new society, from egal- society, the administrative system, and its the site. itarian to hierarchical, from being based officials disappeared definitively. The recent discovery of certain items of on a diffused government to an increasingly Seasonal occupations of pastoralists linked wheel-made light-colored pottery in the Uruk centralized system. (ii) The second case— to the Transcaucasian world of the so-called tradition significantly exhibited, side by side namely, the relationship between the early- Kura-Araxes cultures, initially limited in with the more common red-black ware, only state center of Arslantepe and the itinerant size and unsubstantial, and subsequently in the public/communal building and the pastoralist groups from the mountains—was increasingly large, set up on the ruins of the chief area of the pastoralist phase, suggests one of inclusion of different ethnic and palace. These groups gradually took posses- the possible interaction between the two com- cultural components with a specific economic sion of the site, which at a certain point seems ponents, at least on the occasion of some vocation into a centralized political and eco- to have become their landmark in the terri- communal events. If these data are taken nomic system, integrating them into the tory and the residence of their chiefs. On a together with the similar association of hand- central economy, and making them an es- sequence of occupations made by broad open made red-black and wheel-made light wares sential part of its modus operandi. In this ’ spaces with fences for the livestock and a few in the funerary gifts of a 2,900 BCE chief s case, it was the local component that was the G rare huts, new settlements were established tomb at Arslantepe (Fig. 3 )(55),allofthe “strongest,” but the integration process in with an outstanding area on the top of the evidence indicates that, at the beginning of economic and organizational terms did not mound. This area consisted of one large hut the third millennium, the Malatya plain was lead to the loss of the identity of any of the (a chief hut?) separated from the rest of the probably contemporarily occupied by two related groups. The symbols of their diverse — settlement by a timber palisade and an im- different components a sedentary commu- identities continued to be exhibited, and the posing, probably public or communal mud- nity linked to the post-Uruk developments of “foreign” groups, while probably perceiving brick building, comprising a large reception the Upper Euphrates valley and a pastoral the importance and usefulness of their re- hall and two store rooms full of vessels, hence itinerant community linked to the cultures of lations with and belonging to the powerful keeping foodstuffs (54). Northeastern Anatolia and South Caucasus. political center, also seem to have retained a The few scattered huts in these settlements These groups competed for the control over high level of self-awareness. Here again, the were built using timber and mud poles the site, and probably for the domination of relationship brought about development and whereas the pottery was once again hand- the region, for more than two centuries, ne- was an important element in the growth of made red-black ware, but with a repertoire gotiating, interacting, and clashing, with either the centralized system at Arslantepe. The lack that differed from the black ware from the side alternately succeeding and taking pos- of cultural integration was, however, a source previous palace period. Although the shapes session of the mound. In this case, too, the of weakness, which ultimately undermined were simple, they now met the full range of identity of the two groups must have been the solidity of this nascent early-state orga- domestic requirements, with food pots and clearly perceived and displayed, but the oth- nization. (iii) The third case may be consid- jars of various dimensions, besides bowls erness of one group over the other must have ered to be a development of the second one and cups. It moreover resembled models of been much more acutely felt than in the to a certain extent: For it derives from the Northeastern Anatolian and South Caucasian palace period. And, despite all of the evidence crisis and the breakup of the centralized origin, and no longer Central Anatolian, al- of interaction between them, no evidence has system that had led different communities though the manufacture technique and the been found to suggest any form of inclusion to interact on a regular basis and, at least

Frangipane PNAS Early Edition | 7of8 Downloaded by guest on October 2, 2021 partially, to coexist, without ever integrating Arslantepe, subsequently giving rise, around work is based are mutually coherent, consistent, and them into a single cultural system. These 2,700 BCE, to the slow rebirth of a completely not contradictory. This analysis has tried to focus on the relationship culturally and economically diverse commu- new era. between the data on the organizational, social, po- nities (nomadic versus sedentary, pastoralist Onemightconcludefromthesecasesthat litical, and economic aspects of the societies exam- versus farmers), with a powerful perception it was only full integration between inter- ined and the aspects of material culture indicating of the otherness of the other, continued to acting ethnic/cultural components that led possible intrusive elements, trying to investigate the interact and partially coexist on the same to lasting development, albeit by sacrificing nature of the latter and their place in the process of social change. lands, but, in the absence of the unifying el- certain cultural traditions, whereas the lack As for the acquisition of data in the field, the ap- ement of political and economic centraliza- of integration, even in diverse sociopolitical plication of detailed stratigraphic excavation methods tion, they ultimately entered into competition contexts and models of interaction, was a has been crucial, together with extensive excavation and often conflicted with one another, giving source of instability and conflict. strategies, whose combination has allowed us to dis- rise to instability. A long period of alternation tinguish between successive microstratigraphic events, between cooperation and competition and in Materials and Methods carry out a functional analysis of buildings and set- “ ” tlements, and recognize the possible different cultural the appropriation of the site by one or the Not being able to repeat the experiment, the only way to verify the soundness of the hypotheses ad- and economic components interacting in a site, thereby other community, led to a deep crisis, which vanced in sciences studying past societies is to ensure studying their complex dynamics of competition and ultimately created a fracture in the history of that the assumptions on which the historical frame- integration.

1 Carter RA, Philip G (2010) Deconstructing the Ubaid. Beyond the Community, eds Graves-Brown P, Jones S, Gamble C (Routledge, 40 Wright HT (1998) Uruk States in Southwestern Iran. Archaic Ubaid, eds Carter RA, Philip G (The Oriental Institute, Chicago), SAOC London). States, eds Feinman G, Marcus J (SAR Press, Santa Fe, NM), pp 173– 63, pp 1–22. 21 Frangipane M (2007) Different types of egalitarian societies and 197. 2 Gunder Frank A (1993) The World System, ed Gills BK (Routledge, the development of inequality in early Mesopotamia. World Archaeol 41 Pollock S (1999) Ancient Mesopotamia (Cambridge Univ Press, London). 39(2):151–176. Cambridge, UK). 3 Algaze G (1993) The Uruk World System (Univ of Chicago Press, 22 Forest JD (1996) Mesopotamie: L’Apparition de l’Etat (Paris- 42 Algaze G (2008) Ancient Mesopotamia at the Dawn of Chicago). Méditerranée, Paris). Civilization (Univ of Chicago Press, Chicago). 4 Algaze G (2001) The prehistory of imperialism. Uruk Mesopotamia 23 Bernbeck R (2013) Multisited and modular sites in the Halaf 43 Frangipane M (2012) Fourth millennium Arslantepe: The and its Neighbors, ed Rothman MS (SAR Press, Santa Fe, NM), pp tradition. Interpreting the Late Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia, eds development of a centralised society without urbanisation. Origini 27–83. Nieuwenhuyse O, Bernbeck R, Akkermans PMMG, Rogasch J 34:19–40. 5 Stein G (1999) Rethinking World Systems: Diasporas, Colonies, (Brepols, Turnhout, Belgium), pp 51–61. 44 Frangipane M, ed (2010) Economic Centralisation in Formative and Interaction in Uruk Mesopotamia (Univ of Arizona Press, Tucson, 24 Akkermans PMMG (2013) Living space, temporality and States: The Archaeological Reconstruction of the Economic System AZ). community segmentation: Interpreting Late Neolithic settlement in in 4th Millennium Arslantepe (Sapienza University of Rome, Rome), 6 Stein G, ed (2005) The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters (SAR northern Syria. Interpreting the Late Neolithic of Upper SPO 3. Press, Santa Fe, NM). Mesopotamia, eds Nieuwenhuyse O, Bernbeck R, Akkermans 45 Palumbi G (2010) Pastoral models and centralised animal 7 Parkinson WA (2009) Archaic State Interaction, ed Galaty ML (SAR PMMG, Rogasch J (Brepols, Turnhout, Belgium), pp 63–75. husbandry: The case of Arslantepe. Economic Centralisation in Press, Santa Fe, NM). 25 Akkermans PMMG, ed (1996) Tell Sabi Abyad: The Late Neolithic Formative States: The Archaeological Reconstruction of the 8 Rogers JD (2005) Archaeology and the interpretation of colonial Settlement (Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, Istanbul, Economic System in 4th Millennium Arslantepe, ed Frangipane M encounters. The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters (SAR Press, Turkey). (Sapienza University of Rome, Rome), SPO 3, pp 149–163. Santa Fe, NM), pp 331–354. 26 Verhoeven M (1999) An Archaeological Ethnography of a 46 Bökönyi S (1983) Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I animal 9 Frangipane M (2001) Centralization processes in Greater Neolithic Community. (Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch remains from Arslantepe (Malatya): A preliminary report. Origini Mesopotamia: Uruk “expansion” as the climax of systemic Instituut, Instanbul, Turkey). 12:581–598. interactions among areas of the Greater Mesopotamian region. Uruk 27 Tobler AJ (1950) Excavations at Tepe Gawra (Univ of 47 Bartosiewicz L (2010) Herding in period VIA: Development and Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia). Mesopotamia and its Neighbors, ed Rothman MS (SAR Press, Santa changes from period VII. Economic Centralisation in Formative 28 Rothman M (2002) Tepe Gawra: The Evolution of a Small Fe, NM), pp 307–347. States: The Archaeological Reconstruction of the Economic System Prehistoric Center in Northern Iraq (University of Pennsylvania 10 Frangipane M (2013) Societies Without Boundaries. Interpreting in 4th Millennium Arslantepe, ed Frangipane M (Sapienza University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia), 112. Late Neolithic patterns of wide interaction and sharing of cultural of Rome, Rome), SPO 3, pp 119–148. 29 Frangipane M, ed (2007) Arslantepe Cretulae: An Early traits: The case of the Halaf communities. Interpreting the Late 48 Palumbi G (2008) Mid-fourth millennium red-black burnished Centralised Administrative System Before Writing (Università di Roma Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia, eds Nieuwenhuyse O, Bernbeck R, wares from Anatolia: A cross comparison. Ceramics in Transitions: La Sapienza, Rome), Vol 5. Akkermans PMMG, Rogasch J (Brepols, Turnhout, Belgium), pp 89– Chalcolithic through Iron Age in the Highlands of the Southern 30 Frangipane M (2000) The development of administration from 99. Caucasus and Anatolia, eds Rubinson KS, Sagona A (Peeters, Leuven, collective to centralized economies in the Mesopotamian world: The 11 Nieuwenhuyse O (2007) Plain and Painted Pottery. The Rise of Belgium), pp 39-58. transformation of an institution from system-serving to self-serving. Neolithic Ceramic Styles on the Syrian and Northern Mesopotamian 49 Çalıs¸kan H (2012) Looking to the west: The Late Chalcolithic red- Cultural Evolution: Contemporary viewpoints, eds Feinman G, Plains (Brepols, Turnhout, Belgium). black ware of the Upper Euphrates region. Origini 34:97–109. Manzanilla L (Plenum, New York), pp 215–232. 12 Nieuwenhuyse O (2013) The social use of decorated ceramics in 50 Hauptmann A, Schmitt-Strecker S, Begemann F, Palmieri AM 31 Jasim S (1989) Structure and function in an ’Ubaid Village. Upon Late Neolithic Upper Mesopotamia. Interpreting the Late Neolithic (2002) Chemical composition and lead isotope of metal objects from this Foundation: The ’Ubaid Reconsidered, eds Henrickson EF, the “Royal” Tomb and other related finds at Arslantepe. Paléorient of Upper Mesopotamia, eds Nieuwenhuyse O, Bernbeck R, Thuesen I (Carsten Niebuhr Publications, Copenhagen), pp 79–90. – 28(2):43–70. Akkermans PMMG, Rogasch J (Brepols, Turnhout, Belgium), pp 135 32 Nishiaki Y (2001) Tell Kosak Shamali I, ed Matsutani T (Oxbow 51 Di Nocera GM (2010) Metals and metallurgy: Their place in the 159. Books, Oxford). 13 Carter RA Philip G eds (2010) Transformation and integration in 33 Yamazaki Y (2010) An aspect of the Ubaid intrusion in the Syrian Arslantepe society between the end of the 4th and beginning of the the Late Prehistoric Societies of the Middle East. Beyond the Ubaid Upper Euphrates Valley. Beyond the Ubaid, eds Carter RA, Philip G 3rd millennium BC. Economic Centralisation in Formative States: The (The Oriental Institute, Chicago), SAOC 63. (The Oriental Institute, Chicago), SAOC 63, pp 311–338. Archaeological Reconstruction of the Economic System in 4th 14 Rothman MS, ed (2001) Uruk Mesopotamia and Its Neighbors 34 Parker BJ (2010) Networks of interregional interaction during Millennium Arslantepe, ed Frangipane M (Sapienza University of – (SAR Press, Santa Fe, NM). Mesopotamia’s Ubaid period. Beyond the Ubaid, eds Carter RA, Rome, Rome), SPO 3, pp 255 274. 15 Butterlin P (2003) Les Temps Proto-Urbains de Mésopotamie Philip G (The Oriental Institute, Chicago), SAOC 63, pp 339–360. 52 Zeder M (1988) Understanding urban process through the study (CNRS Editions, Paris). 35 Carter E, Campbell S, Gauld S (2003) Elusive complexity: New of specialized subsistence economy in the Near East. J Anthropol – 16 Frangipane M (2009) Rise and collapse of the Late Uruk centres data from Late Halaf Domuztepe in south central Turkey. Paléorient Archaeol 7:1 55. in Upper Mesopotamia and Eastern Anatolia. Scienze dell’Antichità 29(2):117–134. 53 Pittman H (2007) The glyptic art from Arslantepe period VI A: A 15:15–31. 36 Esin U (1989) An early trading center in Eastern Anatolia. consideration of intraregional relations as seen through style and 17 Graves-Brown P, Jones S (1996) Cultural Identity and Anatolia and the Ancient Near East, eds Emre K, Hrouda B, Mellink iconography. Arslantepe Cretulae: An Early Centralised Archaeology: The Construction of European Community, ed Gamble M, Özgüç N (Türk Tarih Kurumu, Ankara, Turkey), pp 135–138. Administrative System before Writing, eds Frangipane M, Arslantepe C (Routledge, London). 37 Stein G (2010) Local identities and interaction spheres: Modeling V (Università di Roma La Sapienza, Rome), pp 284–338. 18 Jones S (1997) The Archaeology of Ethnicity (Routledge, regional variation in the Ubaid horizon. Beyond the Ubaid, eds Carter 54 Frangipane M (2014) After collapse: Continuity and disruption in London). RA, Philip G (The Oriental Institute, Chicago), SAOC 63, pp 23–44. the settlement by Kura-Araxes-linked pastoral groups at Arslantepe- 19 Herring E (2009) Ethnicity and Culture: A Companion to Ancient 38 Adams RMcC (1981) The Heartland of Cities (Univ of Chicago Malatya (Turkey): New data. Paléorient 40(2):169–184. History, ed Erskine A (Blackwell, Oxford), pp 123–133. Press, Chicago). 55 Frangipane M, et al. (2001) New symbols of a new power in a 20 Renfrew C (1996) Prehistory and identity of Europe. Cultural 39 Frangipane M (1996) La Nascita Dello Stato nel Vicino Oriente “Royal” Tomb from 3000 BC at Arslantepe, Malatya (Turkey). Identity and Archaeology: The Construction of European (Laterza, Rome). Paléorient 27(2):105–139.

8of8 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1419883112 Frangipane Downloaded by guest on October 2, 2021