DOCSLIB.ORG

Metallurgical Provinces of Eurasia in the Early Metal Age: Problems of Interrelation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Metallurgical Provinces of Eurasia in the Early Metal Age: Problems of Interrelation ISIJ International, Vol. 54 (2014), No. 5, pp. 1002–1009 Review Metallurgical Provinces of Eurasia in the Early Metal Age: Problems of Interrelation Evgenij Nikolayevich CHERNYKH* Institute of Archaeology of Russian Academy of Sciences, 117036 Moscow, Dm. Ulianova 19. (Received on November 30, 2013; accepted on March 3, 2014) General chronological frame of the Early Metal Age (EMA) in Eurasia limited from IX/VIII up to turn II/I mill. BCE. The chronological scale of this investigation founded on the systematized date base of more than 3.5 thousand calibrated 14C analyses. EMA can be subdivided into five unequal in chronological sense periods. The Early Metal Age was the epoch clear domination of the western metallurgical centers – particularly up to III mill. BCE. In all probabilities the apogee of the western predominance was incar- nated in the immense of the famous Scythian world, in the limits of the first millennium BCE – i.e. beyond the EMA. The eastern centers take up the initiative of westward pressing after collapse of the Scythian world. KEY WORDS: metallurgical provinces; Early Metal Age; Eurasia. General chronological frame of the Early Metal Age The second period of EMA – the Copper Age dated (EMA) in Eurasia limited from IX/VIII up to turn II/I mill. from V mill. BCE (Fig. 1(B)). The most impressive and BCE. I have to note that the chronological scale of this remarkable peculiarities of this stage were: 1) the great min- investigation founded on the systematized date base of more ing and metallurgical revolution that was occurred a big dis- than 3.5 thousand calibrated 14C analyses. tance away from area of Proto-Metal – in the Northern Balkan ЕМА can be subdivided into five unequal in chronologi- and Carpathian basin; 2) formation of the Carpatho-Balkan cal sense periods (Fig. 1). metallurgical province (CBMP) as the several closed related The first period – s.c. Proto-Metal (PrM). This period metallurgical and metalworking center (Fig. 3, map). Gen- was characterized by very extent chronological length: from eral area of CBMP was equaled approximate 1, 5 million sq. IX/VIII up to V mill. BCE (Fig. 1(A)). Two basic peculiar- km spread from Danubian basin in the Western flank to the ities of this period distinguish it from the subsequent ones. Mid and Low Volga basin in the Eastern flank of this prov- The first feature: the people used only native but not metal- ince. The most characteristic features of CBMP are 1) cast- lurgical (not melted from mineral) copper and lead (Fig. 2). ing and hammering of various heavy tools and weapons Not very numerous ornaments and decorations were made made from chemical pure copper; 2) big number of gold by cold hammering methods. The small tools (awls) were decorations and ornaments (Fig. 3). Metallurgical revolution extremely rare. The second feature: localization of connect- and CBMP formation emerged independently from the cen- ed with this period sites and cultures related mainly with the ters of Proto-Metal area where in V mill. BCE continued Central and Eastern Anatolia, Mesopotamia and Levant limited production of primitive handmade copper goods. (Fig. 2, map) – the general space – up to 1 million sq. km. Specific and symbolic sites of CBMP are the s. c. “gold” Some big settlements with the copper and lead artifacts Varna necropolis in Eastern Bulgaria and Ai bunar – copper characterized by magnificent stone (Çaoynü-tepesi) or clay (polymetallic) mine in Southern Bulgaria. (Çatal-höyük) architecture. Some metal ornaments were Three different blocks of chalcolithic cultures of CBMP used also at funeral ceremonies (Tell-Halula etc.). were spread in various regions of this province (Fig. 3, The PrM can be divided in two main phases: s.c. Pre- map). The central and most significant cultural block occu- pottery Neolithic (IX/VIII–VII mill. BCE) and s.c. Pottery- pied the rich with different copper and others mineral depos- Neolithic or Chalcolithic (VI–V mill. BCE) connected with its areas in the North-Balkan and Carpathian (Karanovo VI- Ubaid, Hassuna, Halaf and other archaeological cultures Gumeltiţa, Varna, Vinca C-D, Tiszapolgar and others distributed in the mentioned region (Fig. 2). In all probabil- archaeological cultures). This block was the main producer ity, the most remarkable and distinguishing feature of this of copper that was distributed eastward to the neighbouring late phase was the practice absence of metalworking tech- settled farming cultures (Cucuteni-Tripolie culture) and nological progress. more distant pastoral steppe communities (Dniepro-Donets, Sredni Stog, Khvalynsk cultures). Final centuries of the fifth * Corresponding author: E-mail: [email protected] and early fourth mill. BCE was the time of disintegration DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2355/isijinternational.54.1002 and disappearance of the earliest metallurgical province in © 2014 ISIJ 1002 ISIJ International, Vol. 54 (2014), No. 5 Fig. 1. Dynamics of territorial “leaps” in the distribution of metal-using cultures of the Early Metal Age at different stages of historical development (schematic maps). Eurasia. One very paradoxical fact: the inheritance of lively regions occupied by cultures of the former PrM period: CBMP was scarcely clear reflected in the production of fol- Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Levant (Fig. 4, map). The exclusive lowing and more late metallurgical systems. importance of the space expansion of this former area was In place of the CBMP appeared extremely powerful owing to the Caucasus inclusion - and not only the South Circumpontic metallurgical province (CMP) i.e. surround- Caucasus, but also the North Caucasus. To the north of the ing Black Sea (or Pontos Euxeinos in old Greek). About two main Caucasus range – in the foothills and steppe – pastoral thousand years (IV–III mill. BCE) this province became the cultures developed, and these communities were extremely central production metallurgical system in Eurasia. With dissimilar to the southern ones where the domination of set- CMP were linked two important historical periods in the tled farming cultures was evidently. The listed regions were history of the Eurasian peoples – Early and Middle Bronze the main space for formation of so-called Proto-Circumpontic Age. metallurgical province (Proto-CMP). Total area of Proto- The third period of EMA – the Early Bronze Age dat- CMP was equaled approximately 1.7–1.9 million sq. km. Its ed in general from IV mill. BCE (Fig. 1(C)). This time the cultures adjoined to the Black Sea just to the south and east great explosion of metallurgical producing took place in the shores (therefore the early phase of CMP was named Proto). 1003 © 2014 ISIJ ISIJ International, Vol. 54 (2014), No. 5 Fig. 2. The Proto-Metal period, IX/VIII–V mill. BCE: area of the main sites and cultures. The black and grey points mark the sites of Pre-Pottery Neolithic period (the grey points – the sites with metal). Area of more late Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultures is marked by grey shade. Copper and lead artifacts from Tell Halula (left); also from Çayönü- tepesi and As¸ikli-höyük. The fundaments of the stone architecture – Çayönü-tepesi. Emergence of high quality metal producing was very sim- mainly in the graves of stock-breeding steppe communities. ilar to technological explosion. At the same time all Proto- The Proto-CMP period has highlighted very brightly a CMP production was absolutely dissimilar the previous – new situation with mutual interrelations of different cultural Carpatho-Balkan metallurgy – both from technological and models. On the basis of the emerged geo-ecological struc- morphological point of view. Firstly: absolute domination of ture three general independent long-lasting subsistence arsenical bronzes – Cu+As and Cu+As+Ni. Secondly: big strategies of Eurasian archeological communities were number of gold and especially silver ornaments and sacral formed at the turn of the forth and third millennium BCE on products (the silver was not used in the centers of Carpatho- the vast territories of Eurasian continent: 1) hunting, fishing Balkan MP). and gathering, located mainly in the forest zone: 2) mobile One very paradoxical situation was close connected with (nomadic or semi nomadic) stock-breeding in the giant Proto-CMP. In practice all mining, metallurgical and metal- Eurasian Steppe Belt stretched from Black Sea area to the working focuses were located in the southern zone of prov- Yellow Sea and 3) sedentary agriculture dominated in the ince occupied by settle farming communities: the Late Uruk more southern areas of continent. The problems of interre- and its synchronous cultures and sites in Anatolia, Kura- lation’ character between the main productive centers of Arax and some others cultures in the Southern Caucasus metallurgical provinces were complicated by interaction (Fig. 4, map). But in addition to that we must note that the between the population of three mentioned general subsis- lion share of different metals artifacts was concentrated in tence strategies. It became especially obviously at process of the famous and rich elite’ graves of the northern pastoral transformation Proto-CMP into reality of Circumpontic culture kurgan cemeteries – so called Maykop kurgan com- metallurgical province. munity (Fig. 4). In general collection of the metals in the The fourth period of EMA – the Middle Bronze Age kurgans of the northern Proto-CMP’ zone exceeded the dated in general from III mill. BCE (Fig. 1(D)). This period southern one more than 15 times! Especially it was reflected was characterized by variety of very important changes on the precious metals – Au and Ag. We have to note else which have captured large blocks of various cultures on one very remarkable distinction from previous, more earlier wide spaces surrounded of Black Sea (Fig. 5, map). The Carpatho-Balkan system: in the CBMP mass of metals in major changes were reflected in structure of the mining, the sites of central producing cultural block surpassed in metallurgical and metalworking centers which have gener- tens times the copper artifacts in peripheral blocks and ated the Circumpontic metallurgical province (CMP).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hassuna Samarra Halaf
    arch 1600. archaeologies of the near east joukowsky institute for archaeology and the ancient world spring 2008 Emerging social complexities in Mesopotamia: the Chalcolithic in the Near East. February 20, 2008 Neolithic in the Near East: early sites of socialization “neolithic revolution”: domestication of wheat, barley, sheep, goat: early settled communities (ca 10,000 to 6000 BC) Mudding the world: Clay, mud and the technologies of everyday life in the prehistoric Near East • Pottery: associated with settled life: storage, serving, prestige pots, decorated and undecorated. • Figurines: objects of everyday, magical and cultic use. Ubiquitous for prehistoric societies especially. In clay and in stone. • Mud-brick as architectural material: Leads to more structured architectural constructions, perhaps more rectilinear spaces. • Tokens, hallow clay balls, tablets and early writing technologies: related to development o trade, tools of urban administration, increasing social complexity. • Architectural models: whose function is not quite obvious to us. Maybe apotropaic, maybe for sale purposes? “All objects of pottery… figments of potter’s will, fictions of his memory and imagination.” J. L. Myres 1923, quoted in Wengrow 1998: 783. What is culture in “culture history” (1920s-1960s) ? Archaeological culture = a bounded and binding ethnic/cultural unit within a defined geography and temporal/spatial “horizons”, uniformly and unambigously represented in the material culture, manifested by artifactual assemblage. pots=people? • “Do cultures actually
    [Show full text]
  • Late Neolithic Agriculture in Temperate Europe—A Long-Term Experimental Approach
    land Article Late Neolithic Agriculture in Temperate Europe—A Long-Term Experimental Approach Manfred Rösch 1,*, Harald Biester 2, Arno Bogenrieder 3, Eileen Eckmeier 4, Otto Ehrmann 5, Renate Gerlach 6, Mathias Hall 7, Christoph Hartkopf-Fröder 8, Ludger Herrmann 9, Birgit Kury 5, Jutta Lechterbeck 10, Wolfram Schier 11 and Erhard Schulz 12 1 Landesamt für Denkmalpflege im Regierungspräsidium Stuttgart, Fischersteig 9, 78343 Gaienhofen-Hemmenhofen, Germany 2 TU Braunschweig, Abt. Umweltgeochemie, Institut für Geoökologie, Langer Kamp 19c, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany; [email protected] 3 Institut für Biologie/Geobotanik, Universität Freiburg, Schänzlestr. 1, 79104 Freiburg i. Br., Germany; [email protected] 4 Department für Geographie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Luisenstraße 37, 80333 Munich, Germany; [email protected] 5 Büro für Bodenmikromorphologie und Bodenbiologie, Münster 12, 97993 Creglingen, Germany; [email protected] (O.E.); [email protected] (B.K.) 6 Geographisches Institut Universität Köln, Albertus-Magnus-Platz, D-50923 Köln, Germany; [email protected] 7 Forstamt Hohenlohekreis, Stuttgarter Str. 21, 74653 Künzelsau, Germany; [email protected] 8 Geologischer Dienst Nordrhein-Westfalen, Postfach 100763, 47707 Krefeld, Germany; [email protected] 9 Institut für Bodenkunde und Standortslehre, Universität Hohenheim, Emil-Wolff-Str. 27, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany; [email protected] 10 Arkeologisk Museum i Stavanger, Peder Klows gate 30A, 4010 Stavanger, Norway; [email protected] 11 Institut für prähistorische Archäologie, Freie Universität Berlin, Fabeckstr. 23-25, 14195 Berlin, Germany; [email protected] 12 Institut für Geographie und Geologie, Universität Würzburg, Am Hubland, 97074 Würzburg, Germany; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +49-7735-93777-154 Academic Editors: Erle C.
    [Show full text]
  • Ch. 4. NEOLITHIC PERIOD in JORDAN 25 4.1
    Borsa di studio finanziata da: Ministero degli Affari Esteri di Italia Thanks all …………. I will be glad to give my theses with all my love to my father and mother, all my brothers for their helps since I came to Italy until I got this degree. I am glad because I am one of Dr. Ursula Thun Hohenstein students. I would like to thanks her to her help and support during my research. I would like to thanks Dr.. Maysoon AlNahar and the Museum of the University of Jordan stuff for their help during my work in Jordan. I would like to thank all of Prof. Perreto Carlo and Prof. Benedetto Sala, Dr. Arzarello Marta and all my professors in the University of Ferrara for their support and help during my Phd Research. During my study in Italy I met a lot of friends and specially my colleges in the University of Ferrara. I would like to thanks all for their help and support during these years. Finally I would like to thanks the Minister of Fournier of Italy, Embassy of Italy in Jordan and the University of Ferrara institute for higher studies (IUSS) to fund my PhD research. CONTENTS Ch. 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Ch. 2. AIMS OF THE RESEARCH 3 Ch. 3. NEOLITHIC PERIOD IN NEAR EAST 5 3.1. Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) in Near east 5 3.2. Pre-pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) in Near east 10 3.2.A. Early PPNB 10 3.2.B. Middle PPNB 13 3.2.C. Late PPNB 15 3.3.
    [Show full text]
  • Neolithic Society in Northern Greece: the Evidence of Ground Stone Artefacts
    Neolithic society in Northern Greece: the evidence of ground stone artefacts Volume I Christina Tsoraki Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield October 2008 to (j3en ABSTRACT Analysis of ground stone technology from the Neolithic of Greece rarely goes beyond incomplete descriptive accounts to focus on the activities performed with these tools and the contexts of their use. Ground stone products are seen as mundane static objects devoid of meaning and lacking significance. The aim of this thesis is to move away from incomplete accounts of ground stone technology and static typologies. Drawing upon the concepts of the chaine operatoire and 'object biographies' this thesis investigates ground stone technology as a social practice focusing on the life-cycle of artefacts from raw material selection to final deposition. The underlying premise is that a contextual approach can contribute to understanding the ways in which the production, consumption and discard of ground stone artefacts were structured within different forms and scales of social practice and the manner in which these differences articulated different meanings and social understandings. The aims of the thesis were materialised through the study of the rich ground stone assemblage from the LN settlement of Makriyalos, Greece. The analysis of the chaine operatoire of the Makriyalos ground stone assemblage revealed diverse technological choices expressed throughout the cycle of production and use. Established traditions existed according to which specific materials were considered to be appropriate for the production of different objects. Furthermore, detailed analysis suggests that the resulting objects were far from mundane artefacts but were instead active media for expressing choices informed by cultural understandings of appropriateness.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Results of the Application of a Complex Approach to the Research of the Late Bronze Age Muradymovo Settlement in the Volgo-Ural Region
    Volume I ● Issue 1–2/2010 ● Pages 29–36 INTERDISCIPLINARIA ARCHAEOLOGICA NATURAL SCIENCES IN ARCHAEOLOGY homepage: http://www.iansa.eu Some Results of the Application of a Complex Approach to the Research of the Late Bronze Age Muradymovo Settlement in the Volgo-Ural Region Nickolay Sherbakova*, Iia Shutelevaa, Gulnara Obydennovaa, Marina Balonovaa, Olga Khohlovab, Alexandra Golyevac aArchaeological Laboratory of Bashkir State Pedagogical University, Ufa, Russia bInstitute of Physicochemical and Biological Problems of Soil Science (Pushchino Scientific Centre), Russia cInstitute of geography Russian Academy of Science, Moscow, Russia ARtICle Info ABStRACt Article history: Research at the Late Bronze Age Muradymovo settlement site located in the Volga-Urals (Figure 1) is the Received: 6 December 2010 first experience of a comprehensive study of archaeological materials with the help of natural sciences Accepted: 21 February 2011 and techniques, such as paleopedology and radiocarbon dating (Chernykh et al. 2002; Chernykh et al. 2004). Radiocarbon dating of the Muradymovo settlement materials provided satisfactory results for Keywords: ceramic samples. It also demonstrated the necessity of careful selection of cultural layer soils for dating palaeopedology purposes. microbiomorphic analysis radiocarbon dating settlement, late Bronze Age Volgo-Ural region Srubno-Alakul’ culture 1. Introduction researched sites in the central Volgo-Urals region (Figures 1 and 2). The Muradymovo settlement was discovered in 1990 by However, radiocarbon dating has never been used in members of the expedition of the Bashkir Scientific Center studies of the Bronze Age settlements in the Bashkortostan of the Russian Academy of Science (Ufa), headed by territory (Hanks et al. 2007). The goal of resuming A.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER1 INTRODUCTION When During the Early Years of This
    CHAPTER1 INTRODUCTION When during the early years of this century Chr. Weinberg (1942. p. 121; 1947, pp. 165-182), Tsountas excavated the first Neolithic settlements in discussing the subject with the ceramic material Thessaly and in Greece, he reached the conclusion from Corinth as his main evidence, drew a parallel that three periods could be discerned in this area: A, between Thessaly II and the Late Neolithic, between B and C, respectively Early and Late Neolithic and Thessaly I and the Middle Neolithic and between the (Early) Bronze Age. He noted many arguments in beginning of Thessaly I (and an earlier phase) and favour of a subdivision of period A into two sec- Early Neolithic. Milojcic on the other hand, mainly tions. but he also observed some factors which in the using the Thessalian material, proposed a division end prevented him from making the division and he intofive periods (1950/51, pp. 1-90). The first was a left the problem to future investigators. socalled "Vor-Sesklo" (not to be confused with the The research was continued by two English present Vor-Sesklo) or Early Neolithic, the follo- scholars, A.J.B. Wace and M.S. Thompson during wing two belonged to the Middle Neolithic, the the 1910's. They did not restrict their activities fourth to the Late Neolithic and the fifth - Rachmani merely to excavating settlements, but made a more - belonged to the Chalcolithic. Schachermeyr invaluable contribution to our knowledge with an (1955) agreed with Weinberg's crude division into exhaustive typology of the ceramic material. They Early, Middle and Late.
    [Show full text]
  • Andronovo Problem: Studies of Cultural Genesis in the Eurasian Bronze Age
    Open Archaeology 2021; 7: 3–36 Review Stanislav Grigoriev* Andronovo Problem: Studies of Cultural Genesis in the Eurasian Bronze Age https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2020-0123 received June 8, 2020; accepted November 28, 2020. Abstract: Andronovo culture is the largest Eurasian formation in the Bronze Age, and it had a significant impact on neighboring regions. It is the important culture for understanding many historical processes, in particular, the origins and migration of Indo-Europeans. However, in most works there is a very simplified understanding of the scientific problems associated with this culture. The history of its study is full of opposing opinions, and all these opinions were based on reliable grounds. For a long time, the existence of the Andronovo problem was caused by the fact that researchers supposed they might explain general processes by local situations. In fact, the term “Andronovo culture” is incorrect. Another term “Andronovo cultural-historical commonality” also has no signs of scientific terminology. Under these terms a large number of cultures are combined, many of which were not related to each other. In the most simplified form, they can be combined into two blocks that existed during the Bronze Age: the steppe (Sintashta, Petrovka, Alakul, Sargari) and the forest-steppe (Fyodorovka, Cherkaskul, Mezhovka). Often these cultures are placed in vertical lines with genetic continuity. However, the problems of their chronology and interaction are very complicated. By Andronovo cultures we may understand only Fyodorovka and Alakul cultures (except for its early stage); however, it is better to avoid the use of this term. Keywords: Andronovo culture, history of study, Eurasia 1 Introduction The Andronovo culture of the Bronze Age is the largest archaeological formation in the world, except for the cultures of the Scytho-Sarmatian world of the Early Iron Age.
    [Show full text]
  • Mehrgarh Neolithic
    Paper presented in the International Seminar on the "First Farmers in Global Perspective', Lucknow, India, 18-20 January, 2006 Mehrgarh Neolithic Jean-Fran¸ois Jarrige From 1975 to 1985, the French Archaeological had already provided a summary of the main results Mission, in collaboration with the Department of brought by the excavations conducted from 1977 Archaeology of Pakistan, has conducted excavations to 1985 in the Neolithic sector of Mehrgarh. in a wide archaeological area near to the modern From 1985 to 1996, the excavations at Mehrgarh village of Mehrgarh in Balochistan at the foot of the were stopped and the French Mission undertook the Bolan Pass, one of the major communication routes excavation of a mound close to the village of between the Iranian Plateau, Central Asia and the Nausharo, 6 miles South of Mehrgarh. This excavation Indus Valley. showed clearly that the mound of Nausharo had Mehrgarh is located in the Bolan Basin, in the north- been occupied from 3000 to 2000 BC. After a western part of the Kachi-Bolan plain, a great alluvial Period I contemporary with Mehrgarh VI and VII, expanse that merges with the Indus Valley (Fig. 1). Periods II and III (c. 2500 to 2000 BC) at Nausharo The site itself is a vast area of about 300 hectares belong to the Indus (or Harappan) civilisation. covered with archaeological remains left by a Therefore the excavations at Nausharo allowed us to continuous sequence of occupations from the 8th to link in the Kachi-Bolan region, the Indus civilisation the 3rd millennium BC. to a continuous sequence of occupations starting from the aceramic Neolithic period.
    [Show full text]
  • Mining, Metallurgy and the Metal Industry
    CHAPTER SIX MINING, METALLURGY AND THE METAL INDUSTRY Mining comprises the extraction and refining of ore; metallurgy involves the smelting of metal from ores; the processing of metal includes the casting and forging of metal objects. Numerous deposits of ores of copper, gold, and cassiterite, from which tin is acquired, are known across the territory of the Andronovo culture. At some mines there is evidence for ancient workings but only a few of them can be confidently assigned to the Andronovo culture. Deposits suitable for exploitation in the Bronze Age must display two features: they must involve mineral sources that outcrop onto the surface to allow easy prospection and discovery; they must also consist of oxidized ores that were not too difficult to smelt. The mining of sulphurous ores was originally impossible as it presupposes a smelting temperature of 1300 degrees which was above the thermal potential achieved by Andronovans and became possible only in the Final Bronze Age. We attribute a mine to the Andronovo culture on the basis of Andronovo ceramics or tools in an ancient quarry or dump. There are also indirect but reasonable arguments for establishing the Andronovo age of a mine on the basis of its ore composition and the presence of ore and smelted metal on an Andronovo settlement. Descriptions of ancient mines have been made by travellers and geologists from the 18th century. Reports of ancient mines were compiled by M. P. Gryaznov (1935) for the Altai, M. E. Masson (1930; 1930b; 1934; 1936; 1953), B. A. Litvinsky (1950) and O. I. Islamov (1955) for Central Asia, V.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Pig Management in the Zagros Flanks: Reanalysis of the Fauna from Neolithic Jarmo, Northern Iraq
    International Journal of Osteoarchaeology Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 25: 441–453 (2015) Published online 23 April 2013 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/oa.2312 Early Pig Management in the Zagros Flanks: Reanalysis of the Fauna from Neolithic Jarmo, Northern Iraq M. D. PRICEa* AND B. S. ARBUCKLEb a Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA b Department of Anthropology, Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA ABSTRACT In this paper, we present a reanalysis of pig (Sus scrofa) remains from the Neolithic site of Qalat Jarmo, orig- inally excavated in the 1940s and 1950s. Employing modern zooarchaeological techniques, not available during the initial analyses, we explore the nature of swine exploitation strategies and demonstrate that pigs were most likely managed by the early 7th millennium (Pottery Neolithic) and perhaps earlier. Comparing biometric data with those from other sites in the region, we show that the Jarmo pigs exhibit evidence for size decrease associated with intensive management, but had not yet achieved the degree of dental or post-cranial size reduction seen in later Neolithic domestic populations. Although samples from the earliest (Pre-Pottery) occupation of the site are small, there is some evidence to suggest that domestic pigs were present at Jarmo as early as the late 8th millennium cal. BC. In either case, Jarmo likely represents the earliest appearance of pig husbandry along the Zagros flanks, and we discuss the mechanisms by which Neolithic technologies, including domesticated animals, spread to new regions. This project emphasises the value of curated faunal assemblages in shedding new light on the spread of Neolithic economies.
    [Show full text]
  • Different Types of Multiethnic Societies and Different Patterns Of
    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
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of Three Late Neolithic Pottery Assemblages
    UNDERSTANDING COMMUNITY: A COMPARISON OF THREE LATE NEOLITHIC POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES FROM WADI ZIQLAB, JORDAN by Kevin Timothy Gibbs A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Anthropology University of Toronto © Copyright by Kevin Timothy Gibbs 2008 Abstract Understanding Community: A Comparison of Three Late Neolithic Pottery Assemblages from Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan Kevin Timothy Gibbs Doctor of Philosophy Department of Anthropology University of Toronto 2008 This study presents the results of an analysis of three Late Neolithic pottery assemblages from Wadi Ziqlab, northern Jordan. These sites were occupied during the 6th millennium BC (calibrated) and are therefore contemporary with sites in other parts of the southern Levant that are attributed to the Wadi Rabah culture. The assemblages are analyzed from a stylistic perspective, broadly defined, which includes an examination of technological style in addition to a more traditional examination of vessel form and surface treatment. Different stages in the pottery production sequence are investigated using a range of analytical techniques, including thin-section petrography and xeroradiography. While there are some similarities between the assemblages, there are also some noticeable differences. The results of the pottery analysis are used to explore the nature of community in the context of the Late Neolithic. A critique of more traditional archaeological approaches to prehistoric communities leads to a re-conceptualization of community that combines interactional and ideational perspectives. Similarities in pottery among the sites, especially technological similarities, suggest that pottery producers may have comprised a dispersed community of practice. At the same time, pottery may have also been a symbolic marker of community boundaries.
    [Show full text]