Changes in Upper Mesopotamian societies from the Halaf to the Late Chalcolithic period. A comparative analysis of different Neolithic and Chalcolithic developmental models in the Near East MARCELLA FRANGIPANE Sapienza Università di Roma, Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità Abstract The paper tries to apply a developmental and comparative approach to the analysis of the processes bringing to the first hierarchical societies in Upper Mesopotamia by focusing on their Neolithic roots and analysing the structural similarities and differences with the contemporary societies in two other regions of the Near East: South Mesopotamia and Central Anatolia. This comparison is aimed at evidencing, on the one hand, similari- ties and differences with an area – South Mesopotamia– whose features differed widely in the sixth millennium BCE but with which the Upper Mesopotamian communities were closely related for millennia. On the other hand, the author examines the profound structural differences with Central Anatolian communities, where the subsistence strategies, environmental contexts, and the resulting economic, social, and political organiza- tion seem to have differed substantially from the Mesopotamian ones. Whereas the comparison with Cen- tral Anatolian developments therefore essentially focused attention on structural features and differences, the analysis of the relationship with Southern Mesopotamia also considered the nature and effects of the intensive “contacts” that linked together the two Mesopotamian regions and were relevant to the developments of both societies. Keywords Upper Mesopotamia, Southern Mesopotamia, Central Anatolia, Neolithic, Chalcolithic, local developments, cultural contact, socio-political changes West & East 3 Monografie, 2 marcella frangipane 1. Introductory Remarks and other relevant areas in the Near East, which can be traced back to specific and different envi- In order to face the question of the deep social and ronmental conditions, subsistence strategies, re- economic changes that took place in Upper Meso- lated social systems, and historically determined potamia in the fifth and fourth millennia BCE, it is phenomena. necessary to focus first on the characteristics of the societies that occupied this region in the course of a long time span, during the seventh and sixth millen- 1.1 Applying a comparative approach nia, preceding the rise of any hierarchy, in order to to highlight structural features of Upper highlight the roots of this crucial change. Mesopotamian societies Today, the increasing wealth of available ar- chaeological data has shown that models borrowed Bearing this in mind, this paper aims at identify- from anthropology and used to rank societies in a ing and better highlighting the peculiar features of succession of evolutionary steps often understate the socio-economic and political developments in the complexity of human history, reducing the im- the prehistory of Upper Mesopotamia by compar- pact of a number of variables and partly obscuring ing them with two other regions of the Near East. the diverse trajectories through which human so- This comparison is aimed at evidencing, on the one cieties have evolved in different natural and social hand, similarities and differences with Southern environments. The “formative” processes and their Mesopotamia, whose features differed widely in the outcomes are indeed exhibiting increasingly greater sixth millennium BCE but with which the Upper variety as more information is gathered on societies Mesopotamian communities were closely related of archaeological interest in which these processes for millennia, and, on the other hand, the profound took place for the first time. And the different his- structural differences with Central Anatolian com- torical conditions and events within which they oc- munities, where the subsistence strategies, environ- curred have had a substantial impact in determining mental contexts, and the resulting economic, social, the features of their emergence and the following and political organization seem to have differed sub- developmental processes. stantially from the Mesopotamian ones. Whereas The Near East provides a number of very inter- the comparison with Central Anatolia will there- esting cases with which to built up a comparative fore essentially focus attention on structural fea- analysis with the aim of shedding light on the main tures, the analysis of the similarities and differenc- trajectories and pathways leading to social change. es with Southern Mesopotamia will necessarily also On the one hand, a number of parallelisms and consider the nature and effects of the intensive re- close similarities between regional developments lationships that linked together the two Mesopota- in the wide Mesopotamian and peri-Mesopota- mian regions and were relevant to the developments mian world may have had their roots in the exten- of both societies. sive interaction network linking the communities The most significant aspects I shall consider when along the vast mountainous belt and hilly flanks of drawing comparisons between the involved Neolithic the “Fertile Crescent” during the long period of and Chalcolithic societies are the following: the “Neolithic revolution” and in the successive – The features of the domestic architecture (hous- intensive and continuous mutual relations con- es, equipment, space-use); necting the Southern and Northern Mesopota- – The presence or absence of public or communal mian communities in the sixth and fifth millennia buildings and their features (dimensions, monu- 1 BCE. On the other hand, substantial differences mental character, function); in the structure of societies and their developmen- – The overall layout of the settlements (agglutina- tal processes are observable between these regions tive, scattered, in blocks or neighbourhood com- plexes) and the use of free common spaces; 1 Carter, Philip (eds.) 2010. West & East 4 Monografie, 2 Changes in Upper Mesopotamian societies from the Halaf to the Late Chalcolithic period – The type and forms of food storage (domestic, 2.1 The premises in PPN villages collective, centralised); in the Taurus region – The management of staple goods (domestic, col- lective or centrally directed); The most symbolically important communal activ- – The symbolic or ideological expressions in funer- ity in PPNB contexts seems to have been the man- ary customs; agement of the sacred, which, judging by the impos- ing sanctuaries with their furnishings and the great – The evidence of territorial organisation, and the concentration of collective work needed to build extent of external relations; them, must have required some sort of central co- – The basic choices of subsistence economy. This ordination. The sanctuaries were transformed from aspect is unfortunately more difficult to com- being probably places of pilgrimage for several com- pare in detail due, in most cases, to the difficul- munities in PPNA (as is the case of Göbekli Tepe)3 ties of retrieving the necessary data to sufficient- to become sacred places linked to individual settle- ly understand the actual “economic role” played ments in PPNB, where a single sanctuary has been by each of the various subsistence activities per- documented in each village, but they always re- 2 formed by the communities. mained central places in one way or another around which the social life and presumably the religious life of the whole community revolved.4 These sanc- 2. Upper Mesopotamia and South-East tuaries certainly expressed a symbolic and ideologi- Anatolia in the seventh and sixth cal world that held these societies together5 and ena- millennia BC bled them to limit the potential conflicts in a period that showed a complex and very gradual transition There are clues which suggest that Upper Meso- from mobile hunter-gatherers to food-producing potamian and South-Eastern Anatolian socie- and more stable communities, in a very varied en- ties, each one in their own manner, may have vironment both in terms of topography and climate had a strong “community-based” form of govern- (from the Jezira plain and foothills to the Taurus ance, from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic onwards and mountains). And Göbekli was exactly located on an through the various and substantial changes that environmental border. occurred in these areas in the course of the seventh, In these PPNB villages, the houses, besides be- sixth, and fifth millennia BC. We must of course ing all very similar in shape and dimensions, as one distinguish between what has been observed in the would expect in what were essentially egalitarian so- earliest Pre-Pottery Neolithic and the later devel- cieties, were extremely standardized and the chang- opments of the Jezira societies, in particular those es in their form and layout in the course of time of the Hassuna and Halaf period. But I think that were applied to all the buildings in the same way 6 in both cases – PPNB and EPN –, albeit in a total- at the same time, indicating that the entire com- ly different way, the communities may have been munity uniformly complied with strict social rules managed on a cooperative basis: a close structural shared by everyone and evenly conformed to meet relationship between the domestic units may have new common needs. This behaviour is not motivat- resulted from the strong social and probably eco- ed by the agglutinated arrangement of the settle- nomic needs for cooperation, while there was a ments and the continuity in the individual family clear