Kura Araxes Culture Areas and The Late 4 PDF

“SAPIENZA” UNIVERSITÀ DI ROMA
DIPARTIMENTO DI SCIENZE DELL’ANTICHITÀ – MUSEO DELLE ORIGINI
ORIGINI
PREISTORIA E PROTOSTORIA
DELLE CIVILTÀ ANTICHE
XXXVI PREHISTORY AND PROTOHISTORY

2014 OF ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS
GESTIONE EDITORIALE E DISTRIBUZIONE
GANGEMI EDITORE Spa
In copertina / Cover illustration: Dagger from cemetery at Kerma and Kerma Classique ceramics;
isometric reconstruction of Tel Haror temple.
ORIGINI
Rivista di Preistoria e Protostoria delle Civiltà Antiche
Review of Prehistory and Protohistory of Ancient Civilizations
Fondata da / Review Founder

S ALVATORE M. P UGLISI

DIPARTIMENTO DI SCIENZE DELL’ANTICHITÀ
– MUSEO DELLE ORIGINI
©
Proprietà letteraria riservata
Gangemi Editore spa
Piazza San Pantaleo 4, Roma
www.gangemieditore.it
Nessuna parte di questa
pubblicazione può essere
memorizzata, fotocopiata o
comunque riprodotta senza
le dovute autorizzazioni.
Le nostre edizioni sono disponibili in Italia
e all’estero anche in versione ebook.
Our publications, both as books and ebooks,
are available in Italy and abroad.
ISBN 978-88-492-3024-6ä
ISSN 0474-6805
ORIGINI
PREISTORIA E PROTOSTORIA
DELLE CIVILTÀ ANTICHE
PREHISTORY AND PROTOHISTORY

OF ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS
XXXVI
2014
Gestione editoriale e distribuzione

Origini è una rivista annuale soggetta a processo di peer-review ed è pubblicata da /
Origini is subject to a peer-review process and is published yearly by:
Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità
Direttore Responsabile / Editor in chief: Marcella Frangipane
Curatori Associati / Associate Editors:

Francesca Balossi Restelli, Cecilia Conati Barbaro, Savino Di Lernia, Lucia Mori, Alessandro
Vanzetti
Comitato scientifico / Scientific Board:

Peter M.M.G. Akkermans (Leiden), Barbara Barich (Roma), M.Giovanna Biga (Roma),
Andrea Cardarelli (Roma), Alberto Cazzella (Roma), Mireille David-Elbiali (Genève), Nick
Drake (London), Anthony Harding (Exeter), Adria LaViolette (Charlottesville-Virginia),
Cristina Lemorini (Roma), Mario Liverani (Roma), Alessandra Manfredini (Roma), Joseph
Maran (Heidelberg), Peter Mitchell (Oxford), Margherita Mussi (Roma), Paola Piana
Agostinetti (Roma), Mark Pearce (Nottingham), Catherine Perlès (Paris), Susan Pollock
(Berlin), John Robb (Cambridge), Manuel Santonja (Burgos), Jiri Svoboda (Brno), Norman
Yoffee (Santa Fe, New Mexico), Daniela Zampetti (Roma).
Revisione grafica / Graphic editing: Giovanni Carboni
Responsabile dei cambi / Appointee for review exchanges: Maurizio Moscoloni

Rivista Origini, Museo delle Origini, Sapienza Università di Roma,
P.le Aldo Moro 5 - 00185 Roma
origini@uniroma1.it
I manoscritti da sottoporre per la pubblicazione vanno inviati a / Submission of papers to be

considered for publication should be addressed to:
Rivista Origini, Museo delle Origini, Dip. di Scienze dell’Antichità, Sapienza Università di
Roma, P.le Aldo Moro 5 - 00185 Roma
e-mail: origini@uniroma1.it
Ordinativi e Abbonamenti vanno indirizzati a / Orders and subscriptions should be addressed to:
GANGEMI EDITORE SPA
P.zza San Pantaleo, 4 – Roma
www.gangemieditore.it
Registrazione al Tribunale di Roma n. 35/2000 (già registrata al n. 11810/1967)
La Rivista è stata stampata con il contributo dell’Ateneo

Indice / Contents
7 INVESTIGATING DOMESTIC ECONOMY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC

IN EASTERN ANATOLIA: THE CASE OF ARSLANTEPE PERIOD VIII
Cristiano Vignola, Francesca Balossi Restelli, Alessia Masi, Laura Sadori, Giovanni
Siracusano
37 KURA ARAXES CULTURE AREAS AND THE LATE 4TH AND EARLY 3RD MILLENNIA BC POTTERY
FROM VELI SEVIN’S SURVEYS IN MALATYA AND ELAZIĞ, TURKEY
Mitchell S. Rothman
93 CULTURAL ENTANGLEMENT AT THE DAWN OF THE EGYPTIAN HISTORY: A VIEW FROM

THE NILE FIRST CATARACT REGION
Maria Carmela Gatto
125 PASTORAL STATES: TOWARD A COMPARATIVE ARCHAEOLOGY OF EARLY KUSH

Geoff Emberling
157 A CLAY DOOR-LOCK SEALING FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE III TEMPLE AT TEL HAROR,
ISRAEL
Baruch Brandl, Eliezer D. Oren, Pirhiya Nahshoni
181 CASE BASTIONE: A PREHISTORIC SETTLEMENT IN THE EREI UPLANDS (CENTRAL SICILY)
Enrico Giannitrapani, Filippo Iannì, Salvatore Chilardi, Lorna Anguilano
213 OLD OR NEW WAVES IN CAPO GRAZIANO DECORATIVE STYLES?

Sara T. Levi, Maria Clara Martinelli, Paola Vertuani, John Ll.Williams
245 Recensioni / Reviews

ORIGINI XXXVI, 2014: 37-91
KURA ARAXES CULTURE AREAS AND THE LATE 4TH AND EARLY
3RD MILLENNIA BC POTTERY FROM VELI SEVIN’S SURVEYS IN
MALATYA AND ELAZIĞ, TURKEY
Mitchell S. Rothman*
ABSTRACT – The Kura Araxes, a cultural tradition of the late 4thand 3rd millennia BC, has recently
become a focus of international archaeological research. It was first discovered in the mountains of the
Taurus and the South Caucasus. From near the beginning of the tradition evidence suggests that
populations bearing some of its hallmarks, black-burnished, handmade pottery and a ritual of the
hearth, spread out over a wide region of the Taurus, Zagros, and Caucasus Mountains, and as far south
as the area of the Sea of Galilee in the southern Levant. Recent research has questioned whether the
simple narrative of a discreet homeland and unassimilated migrants fairly describes the ancient reality.
One of the key dependent variables used to trace the prehistory of the Kura Araxes cultural tradition
is pottery. This article discusses the cultural meaning and interpretive use of pottery, but also the limits
of pottery style alone to reconstruct prehistory. It adds previously unpublished material from Veli Sevin’s
surveys in Malatya and Elazığ provinces to the larger database for study of the Kura Araxes.
KEYWORDS: Kura Araxes/Early Transcaucasian, pottery analysis, ethnicity and culture, Sevin
surveys.
RIASSUNTO – La cultura Kura-Araxes, sviluppatasi nel IV e III millennio a.C., è stata recentemente
oggetto di numerose ricerche archeologiche e di attenzione internazionale. Questa cultura è stata
dapprima scoperta nelle montagne del Tauro e del Caucaso meridionale. Ma da una fase molto
antica della sua affermazione le evidenze suggeriscono che popolazioni portatrici di alcuni dei
suoi tratti più caratteristici, la ceramica rosso-nera brunita fatta a mano e rituali legati al focolare,
si sono diffuse su un’ampia area che va dal Tauro alle montagne del Caucaso, ai monti Zagros e,
a sud, fino alla regione del Mar di Galilea nel Levante meridionale. Ricerche recenti hanno messo
in questione la narrazione semplicistica di un luogo di origine ben definito e di “migranti” poco
assimilati, che sembra non descrivere adeguatamente la realtà antica. Una delle variabili-chiave
usate per descrivere la preistoria della tradizione culturale Kura-Araxes è la ceramica. Questo
articolo discute il significato culturale e l’uso interpretativo che è stato fatto della ceramica, ma
anche i limiti dell’usare gli stili ceramici da soli per ricostruire la preistoria. Inoltre aggiunge
materiali inediti dalla ricognizione di Veli Sevin nelle province di Malatya ed Elazığ all’ampio
data-base esistente per lo studio dei gruppi Kura-Araxes.
PAROLE-CHIAVE – Kura-Araxes/transcaucasico antico, analisi ceramica, etnicità e cultura, ricognizione
Sevin.
INTRODUCTION Mesopotamia state-level societies evolved

and solidified in this period. Partially as
The period from the late 4thinto ear- a result of that fundamental societal re-
ly 3rd millennia BC in the Near East was structuring southern Mesopotamian
a revolutionary time in human (pre-) his- states established the first “internation-
tory. In the lowlands of southern al” trading network, the Uruk expansion
37
Rothman
(Algaze 1993). It was created to guaran- by the south, was the South Caucasus in-
tee a flow of raw materials and goods for fluenced by the Mesopotamian north, or
these societies’ economic needs and their perhaps the north Caucasus (Maikop) cul-
desire for exotic goods to signify newly tures (Kohl 2007; Lyonnet 2007), or was
created social statuses and political au- the South Caucasus itself a core cultural
thority. In the steppes, piedmont, and hills area spreading its influence over a wide area
of northern Mesopotamia and the west- of the Taurus and Zagros Mountains
ern Zagros a trajectory toward central- and beyond? Admittedly, we are near the
ization and social restructuring was oc- beginning of sorting out these issues. As
curring at the same time. This restruc- late as 2005, Smith (2005: 258, 260)
turing may have been influenced or wrote, “we do not have a clear under-
even catalyzed by contact with the south, standing of what the Kura-Araxes actual-
but at sites like Arslantepe (Frangipane ly is.[...] To date, we know frustratingly lit-
1997a, 1997b; Frangipane ed. 2010), Tell tle about the social world of Kura-Araxes
Brak (Oates, Oates 1997, 1994; Oates et [...] communities.”
alii in preparation), Hacınebi (Stein
2001, 1998; Stein ed. 1999), and Tepe
Gawra (Rothman 2002) local condi- THE KURA ARAXES
tions and pre-existing social structures
were the critical factors determining So, what is the Kura Araxes? Is it a time
their societal evolution. period, a culture, a horizon, a phenom-
With the collapse of the Iron Curtain, enon? The Kura Araxes has been identi-
another culture area has come into the fied largely based on a corpus of hand-
scholarly spotlight, the South Caucasus. made, black burnished pottery (Kushnare-
Whereas Greater Mesopotamia has been va 1993, 1997; Sagona 1984; Mun-
the laboratory for the study of dynam- chaev1975; Burney, Lang 1971; Piotrosky
ic societal change in resource-poor, open 1949a, 1949b) and a ritual of the hearth
alluvial and steppe land environments, (Sagona 1998; Rothman, Simonyan n.d.).
the Kura Araxes (also called Early Tran- These seem to indicate a cultural homo-
scaucasian, Karaz, Pulur, Shengavitian, geneity both in the supposed homeland
and in the southern Levant Khirbet of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and
Kerak) is becoming a new laboratory for northeastern Turkey (Sagona 1984) and
analyzing the nature of contemporane- among groups of migrants in a huge di-
ous, resource-rich mountain environ- aspora extending across the Taurus Moun-
ments adjoining Mesopotamia to the tain front (Batiuk, Rothman 2007; Roth-
north and east. man 2003a, 2006; Sagona 1994), and
For some time researchers have known southwest into the Amuq and the Galilee
that the evolutionary trajectory of the (Greenberg, Goren 2009; Batiuk 2005),
mountains was different than either the southeast into the Zagros Mountains
south or the north of Greater Mesopotamia around Lake Urmia to the Kangavar
both in the scale of societies and in the Valley (Rothman 2011), across the bot-
kinds of environmental conditions to tom of the Caspian Sea (Fahimi 2006), as
which they responded. But exactly how are well as north into Daghestan and the
they different? If the north was influenced North Caucasus (Kohl 2007) (fig. 1).
38
Kura Araxes culture areas and the late 4th and early 3rd millennia BC pottery from Veli Sevin’s surveys...
Fig. 1 – Distribution of Kura Araxes (Early Transcaucasian sites).
These cultural elements have lead most re- mountainous regions, with the possible ex-
searchers to see these societies as distinct ception of the material from the Amuq,
and separate from the groups that sur- southern Levant, and arguably the low-
rounded them or among whom they lived, er elevation part of Malatya near Ar-
and the development of Kura Araxes slantepe. Rarely does this type of pottery
people not as indigenous to where they appear far from the shadow of mountains.
lived, but always based on their supposed As I have argued elsewhere (Rothman
departure from a distant homeland. This n.d.), the adaptation of human popula-
rather static view was possible, because up tions to these various natural conditions
until now we also have tended to conflate and their broader cultural structures and
the entire millennium or more that we as- behaviors in the end will be the best way
sociate with the Kura Araxes as if it were to define particular societies within the
one single cultural manifestation, rather Kura Araxes tradition, and further, to de-
than an evolving series of distinct societies. fine societies and their geo-political ex-
On what do we agree? Various studies pressions (polities). The Kura Araxes
(Sagona 1984, and Palumbi 2008 being populations within this broad moun-
the most comprehensive) show that the tainous environment are quite variable in
Kura Araxes pottery is largely limited to their material remains, including pottery
39
Rothman
style, architecture, rituals, mortuary prac- ward Sevan Lake (there actually is no cur-
tices, and technologies (Palumbi 2008). rent comprehensive survey of the Lake Se-
Further, far from being an isolated cul- van area).The third chronologically dis-
ture area, the South Caucasus and its ad- tinct area is to the far north of Armenia,
joining mountain environments were including areas where chaff-faced wares are
fairly open, and populations there showed found (Simonyan, personal communica-
a great degree of mobility for millennia. tion). What is clear is that the culture ar-
A quick look at the time before the ap- eas we tend to define – in some ways I
pearance of the Kura Araxes pottery is in- think they are overly influenced by mod-
structive. Following the Neolithic period, ern political borders – do not follow sim-
the Chalcolithic of the South Caucasus ple, discrete patterns. Since they do not
suggests that there was a close connection seem to be centrally organized, they have
to chaff-faced pottery of northern many possible variations.
Mesopotamia, and even the earliest black This may lead to one of the interesting
burnished wares in the Upper Euphrates contrasts of the Kura Araxes with north
may have been related more closely to the Mesopotamia; in the latter sub-region
central Anatolian highlands than to the commonalities in pottery do seem to cor-
South Caucasus (Sagona n.d.; Frangipane, relate with culture areas. For example, in
Palumbi 2007; Akgül 2012). The earlier the LC2 (early 4th millennium BC) in
5th and 4th millennia at Areni (Areshian northern Mesopotamia one culture area
et alii 2012) and Godezor (personal ob- defined by pottery and architectural style
servation) in Armenia are related at least encompasses the eastern Assyrian steppes
by pottery style and manufacture to the and the piedmont extending up into the
Zagros and to north Mesopotamian foothills of the Taurus Mountains. In-
‘Ubaid styles and Late Chalcolithic ma- cluded in this same area are sites like Tepe
terial. Marro (2007: 92) argues that the Gawra, Tell Brak, Norşuntepe, Tepecik,
chaff-faced wares and other signs of con- and the somewhat earlier Değirmentepe
nection with northern Mesopotamia were (Rothman 2002). Marro concludes that
most evident in the valleys of the Eu- these northern Mesopotamian highland
phrates and Kura rivers, the Karabakh populations may have been replaced by
steppe, and Sürmeli plains. She notes that Kura Araxes ones after the period of the
“they are located next to high mountain Uruk expansion. I am not sure her con-
ranges, but climatewise they are closer to clusion in that regard is correct, but
the Lowlands beyond the Oriental Tau- frankly we do not yet have enough data
rus than to the greater Highlands”. Smith to say for certain. My equally hypothet-
and Badalyan (Smith et alii 2009) divide ical view is that we are not so much talk-
the Kura Araxes tradition in Armenia into ing about discreet populations, each with
three style zones. The latter two, Shresh- its own material artifact styles, but vari-
Mokhra Blur and Karnut-Shengavit, they ous kinds of admixtures, as Frangipane
claim were actually contemporaneous, but (Frangipane, Palumbi 2007) notes for Ar-
reflected different groups,one on the slantepe VIB1. Rothman and Kozbe
lower broad plain of the Ararat Valley and (1997) also observed admixtures of local
the other in the hills and plateau above the Chalcolithic and Kura Araxes techniques
plain stretching from modern Yerevan to- in Muş Valley west of Lake Van for the
40
early 3rd millennium BC. Although ex- by Plain Simple Ware, Ninevite V ware,
cavators at Godin IV found only Kura Scarlet ware, etc. show how the geo-
Araxes pottery, I do not believe that the graphical boundaries of culture areas can
Godin VI population throughout the shift through time. Sometimes such style
Kangavar Valley simply disappeared evidence followed migration or trade
(Rothman 2011). Probably each case, that routes rather than encompassing broad ge-
is each different geographical area, has a ographical areas (Rothman, Fuensanta
distinctly different story in relation to the 2003).
Kura Araxes. What then is the homeland (Palumbi
In other words, I think we who are 2008; Sagona n.d.), what is the migrant
studying the Kura Araxes need to be diaspora, and what is the connection be-
clear to discuss each culture area separately, tween the two (Rothman 2003a, 2006)?
and not assume that every occurrence of Why migrate in the first place? An older
hand-made, black burnished ware repre- suggestionabout the push for out-migra-
sents a single migration event from the tion (Burney and Lang 1971) was over-
South Caucasus. The very early date of population. Areshian (2007) notes such
such wares at Arslantepe and their differ- an increase in population in the area of the
ences from contemporaneous South Cau- Ararat Plain. A more recent suggestion was
casian types reinforces this idea (see below). that these migrants were opportunistic.
We also need to leave open the likelihood They were bearers of technologies of
that there is much more mobility in the wine making (Batiuk 2013), metallurgy
areas where Kura Araxes material existed (Kohl 2007), and pastoral products
than in Mesopotamia (see below). (Frangipane, Palumbi 2007) (mostly the
Nor, if we can locate concentrations of better quality wool for weaving: Antho-
Kura Araxes pottery at one time, do ny 2007). These products would be in de-
these areas necessarily remain the same. mand for trade to the south by societies
In Northern Mesopotamia, for example, into which they had migrated (Rothman
by the early third millennium, the area 2003a, 2011). While possibly true, nei-
around Gawra was incorporated into ther theory fully explains what the many
the Ninevite V style area, and Norşunte- waves of migration, and perhaps move-
pe became a site first with Plain Simple ments back to the “homeland” as well
and early Reserved Slip wares and then mean. This I called ripples in the stream
with a large percentage of Kura Araxes pot- (Rothman 2003a). Nor are we sure that
tery style and then a painted ware tradi- all the black burnished pottery represents
tion with some Kura Araxes designs (see actual people (see below). These mi-
below); this is based on the admittedly grants are represented by a multiplicity of
small published sample plus what Palumbi small sites, often at the edges of developing
(2008) was able to see. For example, local cultures in polities like the one cen-
changes in the architecture at Norşunte- tered at Arslantepe in Malatya (Frangi-
pe (Palumbi 2008) most likely correlate pane1997a, 1997b; Frangipane ed. 2010,
with a sequence of cultural changes. Di Nocera 2005). Still, that there was a
Again, the re-orientation of the societies migratory process is to me most clearly ev-
of Mesopotamia after the end of the Uruk idenced by the pattern of the appearance
culture into smaller cultural areas typified of the Kura Araxes styled pottery first as
41
Rothman
a small percentage of the total corpus at tive origin. The activities of their every-
central sites and then as newly founded day life resemble those of the people
sites with exclusively Kura Araxes pottery among whom they live. But whether be-
across the Taurus front (Batiuk, Rothman cause of tradition, competition with the
2007; Rothman 2003a) and down into natives of the place to which they migrate,
the southern Levant. It is also evidenced or some sort of occupational specialization
by the stages in the movement of migrants that defines them as a distinct group, they
down the Murat River valley, first into the retain some key elements of that cultur-
highlands and then blending with local al tradition. From Turks in modern Ger-
populations in the Muş Valley bottom many, to Italian- or Irish-Americans, to the
(Rothman 2003a, 2006; Rothman, Kozbe Romani throughout Europe and the
1997). Although I and others first saw Middle East (Rothman n.d.) this is an eth-
them as nomadic pastoralists, I now be- nic pattern repeated over and over by mi-
lieve they are better described as small grants into new and often heterarchical,
clans, perhaps of transhumants, but cer- complex societies. Frangipane (Frangipane,
tainly as both settled and mobile popu- Palumbi 2007) suggests that this was the
lations who stay for enough time to case at Arslantepe at the height of its tem-
leave mounded remains. They are analo- ple-palace institutions in the later 4th mil-
gous in my opinion to the modern Ro- lennium BC. Certainly, there is a kind of
mani (Rothman n.d.). cultural dissonance at early 3rdmillenni-
What is increasingly clear to me is that um BC at Norşuntepe. The pottery that
that the Kura Araxes is a cultural tradition, dominated the site fits into the Kura Arax-
a cultural umbrella that certain, often mo- es tradition, but the “palace” (Hauptmann
bile populations maintained over a long 1976) with its multiple square rooms, sec-
period of time as part of their identity, ond floor and large storage spaces match-
even as they adopted new cultures (Roth- es nothing in the South Caucasus or Erzu-
man n.d.). The makers of this pottery were rum. Assuming we can use a single ar-
no doubt aware of the more advanced pot- chitectural form as evidence, it suggests
ting techniques of those around them with a political organization more like those of
fast wheels and kilns, but chose to main- Greater Mesopotamia than that of the
tain an older technology that remains mountains.
largely unchanged at least in terms of tech- Our problem then is to make some
no-forming, clay choice, and tempering sense of the different streams within the
(Iserlis et alii 2009). They retained this tra- Kura Araxes cultural tradition, and what
ditional kind of pottery technology, and they tell us about the development of so-
to some degree a mobile nature. For Beth cieties in which Kura Araxes pottery
Yeraḥ in the south Levant, the type site of making people lived, and what their
Khirbet Kerak, Paz (2012) describes the patterns of movement were. First, are we
houses of Kura Araxes pottery-using peo- talking about the same time, (see Table
ple as looking very temporary, as if they 1)? For example, Palumbi (2008, Tab.
were not fully settled and ready to move. 3.2) discusses a period from 3500 to 2900
In a modern analogy, the Kura Araxes BC. In Badalyan and Smith’s nomencla-
population resembles the behaviors of eth- ture (Smith et alii 2009), this is EBI (Kura
nicities in cultures often far from their na- Araxes 1), the first half of the time when
42
Table 1 – After Palombi (2008), Sagona (2000, 1984), Conti and Persiani (1993), Rothman (2011), Rothman
and Simonyan n.d., Smith et al. (2009), Voigt (1980).
Kura Araxes material is evident. Te- environment and organization; the Mid-
pecik, Korucutepe, Tel Afis Late Chal- dle Bronze populations were not settled
colithic, the first phase of Gegharot, farmer/herders, but more mobile and mil-
Mokhra Blur (Smith et alii 2009; personal itaristic groups (Smith 2005).
observation) fit into this time period. Yet,
all of Shengavit, Godin IV, Beth Yeraḥ Broadly, as I discussed above, one
(Khirbet Kerak), most of Yanik Tepe (I cannot assume that people who made and
would argue), were not even occupied un- used Kura Araxes pottery were econom-
til after the time Palumbi analyzes, (so ically the same. For example, Frangipane
2900-2500 BC or EB II/ Kura Araxes II1 (Frangipane, Palumbi 2007) speaks of the
in Badalyan and Smith’s scheme). The increase in sheep goat at Arslantepe in
change-over in the western zone to VIA as being an effect of the presence
Karababa painted wares never happened people using the Kura Araxes tradition.
in the South Caucasus. The local Kura The assumption is that the Kura Araxes
Araxes styles elaborated from earlier folk are all sheep/goat pastoralists. How-
black burnished forms. Sagona’s (2000) ever, the good data we have from the
idea that the cultural tradition continued South Caucasus shows that cattle bones
until certainly the end of third millen- constituted a large proportion of animal
nium BC in the “homeland” makes remains (for Şhengavit, admittedly later,
sense in terms of general pottery manu- Pamela Crabtree, interim report).
facture and style, but not adaptation to Bahşaliev (1997) sees an increase in
1
I would argue that we should abandon both Chalcolithic and Bronze Age nomenclatures. They are used
so differently from region to region that they make no sense.
43
Rothman
sheep and goat at the end of the Kura trade nor emulation of style was consid-
Araxes. Therefore, why should the pas- ered. In this light, pots equaling people
toralists necessarily be from Kura Arax- eliminated the idea that local development
es populations? was possible if “foreign” artifacts from
How then do we measure migrant or “more advanced” societies were present.
culture area patterns? Certainly, all the dis- Complex cultural patterns like the emu-
cussion has centered on pottery style and lation of southern Mesopotamian pottery
manufacture. So, that is a place to start. styles in the Late Chalcolithic pottery of
But what does style and manufacture ac- northern Mesopotamia (Helwing 1999)
tually mean? were largely inexplicable. This dichotomy
was therefore at the heart of the debates
over the Uruk south as the dominant core
THE MEANING OF POTTERY STYLE of its hypothesized, extensive world sys-
tem (see articles in Rothman ed. 2001).
The meaning of pottery style in partic- Further study shows that migrations did
ular is a source of great ambivalence to ar- happen (Anthony 1990; Rothman
chaeologists. While most (e.g. Palumbi 2003a), and that it and inter-cultural con-
2008), including myself, quote Carol tact produced complex patterns of style
Kramer’s dictum, “pots are not people,” we distribution, affecting all parties in the in-
then go about in effect saying that pottery terchange. This is certainly what we are
style and manufacturing techniques are dealing with in regard to the Kura Arax-
closely related to cultural groups. Our very es cultural tradition. We are also likely
definition of the Kura Araxes has been dealing with domestic pottery production;
largely based on pottery style. Yet when we that is, each household made its own pot-
compare, for example the cultural aspect tery. Standardization of pottery manu-
of ritual emplacements at Shengavit in the facture is present when there was mass pro-
South Caucasus and Pulur (Sakyol) in the duction or even specialist production at
Altınova, the ritual emplacements are a smaller scale (Blackman et alii 1993;
amazingly similar but the pottery they use London 1991). As I will argue below, there
is Kura Araxes, that pottery is very differ- is little standardization in Kura Araxes pot-
ent in shape and design at the two sites (Si- tery at any period or any place.
monyan, Rothman n.d.). One way to look at pottery style is as
Part of the problem is that we do not a kind of language or linguistic dialect,
remember where Kramer’s dictum came which like style is a clear representation of
from or what the cultural source of pot- symbols of identity (Rothman 2001,
tery style is. Kramer (1977) was writing n.d.). Studies show that linguistic com-
near the beginning of arguments about the monalities arise because of the frequency
New Archaeology. At the time, the dom- with which people interact and based on
inant archaeological paradigm was one of who teaches them their language. Over
diffusion. Therefore, the local culture was time, these commonalities increase in
typified by its cultural traits; that is, its ar- contrast to other speakers, creating dialects
tifact types, and the appearance of those based on geography or other groupings like
types elsewhere necessarily indicated mi- clans in kinship societies, or in modern so-
gration or cultural ‘intrusion’. Neither cieties class or race. Again, the Early
44
Bronze Age pottery in northern made by the right-handed potters, his

Mesopotamia reflected the relationship be- product was considered inferior, and the
tween a balkanized political structure other, almost universally right-handed pot-
and pottery style (Rothman, Fuensanta ters, tried to convince him to become
2003), yet there were within each area right-handed. This illustrates the con-
flows of other sorts of pottery styles that servatism of most village potters. “Few Ra-
overlapped (LeBeau 2000). jasthani potters are interested in experi-
Through studies of modern potters in mentation for its own sake, and most
non-industrial economies, we can see queried on the subject seemed disin-
this principle at work. The functions of clined to either work with new clays or at-
pots often fall into the same categories: tempt to process familiar clays in new ways
jugs or jars for liquids, drinking cups or (for example, by levigating, seasoning,
mugs, eating bowls (for the Kura Araxes, adding temper, or pre-heating leather-hard
small eating pots: Rothman 2011), prepa- pots in cold or damp weather)” (Kramer
ration bowls, cooking pots, utilitarian ves- 1997: 52-53).
sels, for mixing, and storage vessels. The nature of pottery as an economic
These functions can be determined by a good, rather than as a product for home
ratio of volume to shape (Henrickson, Mc- use affects the degree of standardization as
Donald 1983) and by other elements such well. London (1991: 200) reports that in
as thickness of the walls, and sometimes Paradijon, the Phillipines, pottery is made
tempering. For example, one of the ma- and sold in markets. In effect profession-
jor changes in the 3rd millennium BC Ear- al (specialized) potters produce a very stan-
ly Bronze Plain, Simple Ware tradition was dardized product acceptable in a market
the addition of stone grit rather than chaff of subsistence farmers. Because markets
to the clay fabric for cooking pots (Algaze happen only once a week, however, they
1990). At Shengavit if one sees heavy will use amateurs to complete some ves-
quartz or perhaps calcite intrusions in the sels introducing variations.
temper, one knows it is cooking pot The kind of local production in which
ware before, even looking at the shape, fir- various elements of style are added by lo-
ing temperature, crackling, or other signs cal teachers is evident in the Kura Arax-
of burning on the surfaces. So, within each es tradition. As Sagona had noticed in his
functional category “the social dimension, 1984 publication, and as others looking
as represented by the source of learning, at the Kura Araxes case continue to affirm,
has been evaluated as a main cause of pot- “interpretation [is] further exacerbated by
tery variation, both with respect to style the distinct regional variants of this ‘cul-
and techno-form” (Ali 2005; see also tural-historical community.’ This pro-
Arnold 1993, 1989). Communication nounced regional diversity […] may, of
(teaching) among potters is a critical course, also be explained in part chrono-
factor. Each group of potters tends to have logically and suggest that this “culture” (or
a clear model of how to make pottery and perhaps better, ‘phenomenon’ or ‘bloc of
what stylistic elements of form and design cultures’) was quite heterogeneous, nev-
to add to it. Kramer (1997) reports the er representing a single unity or polity”
trouble of a left-handed potter in Ra- (Kohl 2007: 89). Further, those styles
jasthan. Unable to exactly mirror the forms changed over time locally and regionally.
45
Rothman
We do not have an up-to-date catalogue styles assumes that, like the Hasanlu
of such period by period and place by breastplate, there is a cultural meaning at-
place pottery style within the period tached to it. In that case, the local warlords
when Kura Araxes pottery was being at Hasanlu wanted to reflect a kind of mil-
made and used. Whether one could ac- itary fierceness represented by the per-
tually do such a catalog from current ception of the dominant military power
sources is questionable, but in the end it of the time, the Assyrians. The potters at
will be necessary to solve a whole series of Hassek Höyük (Helwing 1999) certain-
analytical questions. ly wanted to reflect for the newly devel-
Again, as far as we can tell, Kura Arax- oping local leaders the status of southern
es traditional pottery was made by house- Mesopotamians by reproducing copies of
holds and was not very technically stan- Uruk forms using local clays and tech-
dardized. Certainly, it is hand-made and niques. In colonial systems, like the
not slow or fast wheel turned. Also, it ap- British Raj in India, the adoption of many
pears to be pit-fired and not kiln-fired. British institutions and styles lasted long
Mass production or specialized production after the British were gone. However, the
for exchange of pottery seems very unlikely. adoption of Kura Araxes styles up to 80%
Pottery style represents identity in at Norşuntepe (Palumbi 2008) cannot
that the teachers pass on their particular, simply be trade, nor, contrary to his as-
local style and techniques, but unfortu- sertion can one ignore the real possibili-
nately, it is not that simple. Why should ty that pots in this case do equal actual
people who had belonged to groups pro- people whose identity was marked by the
ducing chaff-faced wares, Plain Simple Kura Araxes pottery styles. This is espe-
Wares, or other traditions switch to the cially true when they come from archi-
seemingly less sophisticated, certainly tectural plans like the round buildings
more domestically produced pottery with square adjoining rooms at Norşun-
style? As Winter (1980) asks in regard to tepe XXIV (Hauptmann 1982, Plate 34)
the Assyrian style horse breastplate at or in mudbrick and wattle and daub
Hasanlu, why should local populations be buildings with ritual hearths at Norşun-
receptive to foreign styles? Palumbi (2008) tepe XVIII (Hauptmann 1982, Plate
may be right in citing the political un- 29). These are very typical of what one
certainty in the early 3rd millennium would find in Armenian sites like Shen-
BC. He certainly is right that trade and gavit and in the uplands of Shida Kartlı.
emulation are part of the answer. But, how But, even if it were adoption of a “foreign
do we distinguish one from another? Stein style,” what role did Kura Araxes groups
(2010: 37) points to the complexity of re- play? Was the need to integrate various
gional patterns of adoption of Ubaid populations symbolically represented in
styles; “the differences between the con- pottery style? Status and influence certainly
stituent local parts of an interaction played a role. Will modern Europeans ever
sphere are as important as the small adopt Romani styles as their primary ones
number of overarching similarities that when the Romani are clearly of lower sta-
link them. In fact, local variation is the fac- tus? Did the Romans adopt the styles of
tor that actually generates the interaction their colonies in Britannia?
sphere in the first place.” Adoption of In his 1984 book, Sagona attempted to
46
Fig. 2 – Distribution of Pottery Style Groups.
match the differing style groups within the servation). The Armenian style covers
Kura Araxes cultural tradition with geo- much of the same area in the Kura Araks
graphical zones (fig. 2). In his Kura Araks III period, according to his mapping.
II period, the Tsalka material, most iden- Malatya and Elâziğ tend to fall outside
tifiable because of raised as opposed to in- both the Tsalka and Armenian areas in
cised designs, had the greatest geograph- what Sagona calls the Upper Euphrates
ical distribution including much of north- style group. The complexity of trying to
ern Taurus massif to the Murat River (re- associate a single style sub-group with an
cent excavations at Karagündüz east of area is apparent in my later analysis of one
Lake Van expand the area: personal ob- very particular design element, the so-called
47
Rothman
Dimple and Line or Line and Groove. I Because we cannot map discreet areas
encountered this motive, often on a gray with exclusively one or another sub-
as opposed to a black surface, in Muş group of Kura Araxes traditional styles may
(Rothman, Kozbe 1997). When I mapped be an indicator of various kinds of mobility
the distribution of dimple and line motif, (Rothman 2003a). Perhaps, we need to
it crossed the Tsalka and Armenian sub- speak of directional vectors rather than ar-
group distributions identified by Sagona, eas. So, pottery style can serve best as val-
but it was not identical to either (Rothman idation of cultural patterns based on cul-
2003b; a note on my article: the line and tural patterns in particular places. Those
dimple actually does extend somewhat fur- cultural patterns consist of organization-
ther north, as I erroneously did not include al structures generated in response to lo-
Samshvilde (see Palumbi 2008, figs 5.7, cal environmental and human condi-
5.8) and west at Aşvan Kale (Sagona 1994: tions: production and trading systems, the
fig 113, 3-6). I attributed the design to forms of control and group cooperation,
groups living in the same area as the Iron identity (ethnicity in a real sense), ide-
Age Urartians later would. This I explained ologies, geographical and polity scale,
as indicating an adaptation to less optimal and yes, population movements. Pottery
mountain environmental niche than one style should also correlate with other cul-
would find in Maltaya and parts of tural symbols, such as house layout, mor-
Elâziğ (the Altınova) to its west and in tuary practice, etc., as Palumbi (2008) sug-
Solduz and other valleys south and west gests.
of Lake Urmia to its east.
In general the complex distribution pat-
terns of Kura Araxes pottery styles indi- Characteristics of Pottery Style and Function
cate that pottery style is a dependent vari-
able. Although there are distinct variables What then should we be looking for to
that are clearly symbolic, the associations identify the variation that we can corre-
of particular variables with particular ar- late to particular population groups or
eas or times are not so easy to make. One trading partners within interaction
of the classic distinctions in design with- spheres? This would include different en-
in the Kura Araxes tradition is between vironmental zones and geographically
raised and incised designs, yet at Gegharot defined societies/polities as well as im-
in the Armenian uplands both raised and migrant groups coming from these dif-
incised designs were evidenced in its final ferent culture areas. But, as Stein (quot-
stages (Hayrapetyan 2008). Broadly raised ed above) suggests, a focus on local sys-
designs, which look like applique, are ac- tems is the place to start.
tually made by putting on a very thick slip One characteristic that is most often
then removing all but the design with per- mentioned is color, particularly red-black
haps a wooden stick or rounded bone; in- color contrast (Palumbi 2008) (actually
cised ones are cut into the surface. All the black (outside)-red (inside)).Color did
variables described below are a kind of mix seem to be an important factor for the an-
and match system, which makes mapping cients. At Arslantepe, some of the offering
a given design set on a particular geo- stands (fruitstands) used at Arslantepe for
graphical area very difficult. rituals were the typically buff in color, but
48
some were intentionally blackened on the the different fabrics from dense and ho-
outside (Frangipane, Palumbi 2007). The mogeneous to porous based on different
so-called Royal Tomb dug into the rubble kinds and percentages of tempering ma-
of the last temple/palace buildings of the terials. In a less formal way, differences are
4th millennium BC also had both Upper apparent. At Godin, the great majority of
Euphrates Early Bronze Age and Kura the Kura Araxes pottery was quite crude
Araxes artifact types (Frangipane, Palumbi with a single slab (coiling is much less pop-
2007). Greenberg (2007) proposes that ular than slab construction), usually heavy
Khirbet Kerak manifestations of the tra- with grog (ground up pottery) and then
dition fall into three color groups. The red- thickly slipped (fig. 3A). At Shengavit, of
black forms were the most traditional the pottery I have so far seen a very com-
shapes, red slipped ones represented new mon construction technique is to take two
functions or new styles, and gray/brown slabs of different colored clay with differ-
ones were for the pottery of the kitchen. ent tempering, pushing them together,
A very similar red-slipped, undecorated shaping them, and often finishing off the
ware appeared at Yanik Tepe west of (the rim by a swipe of the thumb or a flat tool
former) Lake Urmia in Square MC, lev- or else pinching them into a sharper rim
el 6 (personal observation at the Univer- (fig. 3B). This is the normal way to make
sity of Pennsylvania Museum), which red-black ware at Shengavit. Iserlis confirms
Summers (n.d.) dates to EBIII (roughly this pattern from x-ray studies (personal
Sagona’s Kura Araks III). Yet, this same communication). Beth Shean (fig. 3C) has
symbol set does not seem to hold every- the same technique. At Yanik Tepe, a va-
where in the Kura Araxes cultural tradition. riety of techniques were used: a finer core
My own studies of pottery from Kura with gray slip (fig. 3D), chaff faced cores
Araxes levels at Godin Tepe (Rothman with thick slips, almost slabs (fig. 3E), a sim-
2011), in Muş (Rothman, Kozbe 1997), ilar form with scoring on the core to an-
and at Shengavit indicate that there are a chor the slip (fig. 3G), and dense miner-
great variety of colors, of which red- al cores (fig. 3H). The red-slipped ware (fig.
black is a minority at those sites. At 3F) has an unusually consistent dense core
Shengavit and Karagündüz east of Lake and the slip was very fine. Some similar pat-
Van (personal observation), where there is terns exist in our sample from Malatya-
red inside, it is often painted red before fir- Elâziğ (see below). Most often, except on
ing. This technique is used for vessels from large pots or pithoi – contrary to Frangi-
vats and large pithoi to smaller bowls and pane (Frangipane, Palumbi 2007) there are
even utilitarian wares. Still, at Shengavit pithoi in the South Caucasus – these pots
there were pots that were intentionally are not slipped. At the same time, petro-
made with highly burnished red exteriors. graphic analysis of clays and tempering
These were often decorated and my ini- from far away Beth Yeraḥ (Khirbet Kerak)
tial impression is that they were eating ves- in the southern Levant, and Kura Araxes
sels. So, color is one characteristic, but it sites of the 4thand 3rd millennia (Iserlis
is far from universal in its application and 2009; Iserlis et alii 2010) indicate a com-
thus unlikely to have a universal meaning. mon tradition of pottery manufacture
The fabrication is another important existed that spanned hundreds of years and
variable. Hayrapetyan (2008) classifies as many kilometers. Iserlis points to the fact
49
Rothman
Fig. 3 – Cores of Kura Araxes Pottery: A. Godin tepe; B. Shengavit Red Black; C. Beth Shean Red Black;
D. Yanik Tepe gray jar (63-25-01); E. Yanik thick slip (23-25-60); F. Yanik Red-slipped (63-25-64); G.
Yanik Tepe thick slip (63-25-41); H. Yanik Tepe cooking pot ware (63-25-02).
that except for some cooking pots, the pop- sources. What is clear is that despite being
ulations who made Khirbet Kerak wares a seemingly simple technology, potters were
and those who made the local Early able to vary tempering and clay sources to
Bronze III pottery used different clay achieve rather specific results.
50
Fig. 4a – Kura Araxes shapes from Arlantepe (after Frangipane and 2007, Figure 4; Aşvan Sites (after Sag-
ona 1994, Figures 16-19; Natsagora Cemetery, Georgia (after Puturidze and Rova 2012, Figure 10).
Another element is shape (fig. 4a, b ed above, a degree of overall similarity is

where 4a are mostly pre 2900 BC or Kura evident, yet a significant variation exist-
Araxes I, 4b are all post 2900 Kura Arax- ed. Some common profiles are typical of
es II). Within the functional categories list- the Kura Araxes tradition. One such
51
Rothman
Fig. 4b – Kura Araxes shapes from Godin (after Rothman 2011, Figure 5.56-5.61); Yanik Tepe (from Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania Museum); Shengavit.
profile is the sinuous or s-shaped pots. The 2009). Although no formal study of its
typical Elar Shengavit, post 3000 BC jar distribution has been done, my impres-
profile (fig. 4b) is this sinuous shape with sion is that the form is most common in
two carinations on the side (Smith et alii Armenia, but it also appeared at Godin
52
Tepe (Rothman 2011, fig. 5.59, fig. 4b). dition continued in the South Caucasus
Bowls with flat rims are also common. As see Sagona 2000). The most familiar de-
one would expect for handmade, house- signs are the incised and raised designs (fig.
hold-produced pottery there is a very 5a, b). Some common themes existed,
broad variation in features such as rim such as ladders, often in running patterns
shape. So-called Nachiçevan handles are around the pot, and a double swirl in the
another feature that appears across the en- Tsalka Tradition at Karaz (Rothman
tire geographical range of the Kura Arax- 2011, fig. 5.5), at Garni (Palumbi 2008,
es tradition. Figure 4a and b provides a fig. 5, 29), and at Yanik (see fig. 4a). That
very general impression of some of the same swirl pattern is found in metal
shapes from different areas and phases of pins, often in cemeteries with other in-
the Kura Araxes tradition. These figures dicators of the Kura Araxes tradition
do not represent a comprehensive cata- (Puturidze, Rova 2012; Palumbi 2008, fig.
logue, but do give an indication of both 4.3). As Figure 5a and b, which is only a
the similarities and subtle differences of sample of various designs, illustrates,
this variable. Most critical for questions these designs are often very variable. De-
of migration is the fact that many of these signs were not that common in the
shapes are less evident in Plain Simple or Malatya plain, and as I will discuss below,
Reserved slip wares common in areas to in the mountainous stretches of Elâziğ
which Kura Araxes populations migrated; province until painted pottery re-emerged
therefore, they represent at least a separate near the end of the time the Kura Arax-
pottery making tradition and likely peo- es tradition was practiced. The time lines
ples of different identities. for such transitions do not seem to be the
same in the Taurus, Zagros, North Cau-
A final element that Kura Araxes pot- casus and throughout the South Cauca-
ters had to work with was design, or the sus; hence, the idea of a Kura Araxes pe-
lack of design. Both are to me important riod is a difficult concept to support.
and were conscious choices by potters (fig. Nonetheless, design “is an aspect which
5a, b). At Godin, a large percentage of marks a major difference [from Ar-
Kura Araxes pottery was decorated by in- slantepe VIB1] with the tradition and the
cising and adding lime in the cuts. When function of the Kura Araxes ware, which
the site appears to have been incorporat- is among very few media chosen for the
ed into the Awan polity (Potts 1999: 92f) artistic and decorative expression of the
in Godin III:6, a small percentage of black Transcaucasian communities and for
ware continued to be made, all undeco- transmitting symbols, messages, and val-
rated (Henrickson 2011). I have suggested ues belonging to that culture” (Frangipane
to Summers, who is publishing Yanik 2007: 241-242).
Tepe, that its square building phase with As I wrote and Smith is quoted above,
undecorated black pottery may be the par- given the lack of finely dated, well pub-
allel to Godin III:6. This puts both in the lished material on the Kura Araxes tradi-
period from 2600-2400 BC cal; or in oth- tion, even in its putative homeland, we are
er words, the traditional end of the peri- at the beginning of the pursuit of the core
od in which the Kura Araxes adaptation cultural meanings of the Kura Araxes cul-
was common (for an opinion that the tra- tural tradition. What then can the new
53
Rothman
Fig. 5a – Kura Araxes Pottery Design from Yanik Tepe (at University of Pennsylvania Museum), Godin
Tepe (after Rothman 2011, Figure 5.49).
54
Fig. 5b – Kura Araxes Pottery Design from Sevin Survey, Shengavit, Beth Shean (University of Pennsylva-
nia Museum), Norsuntepe painted (after Hauptmann 1982, Plates 50 and 51).
55
Rothman
material from Sevin’s survey add to this any given site would be meaningful. We
ever more complicated picture? lack information on the size and occa-
sionally the location of some surveyed sites.
VELI SEVIN’S SURVEYS In the summer of 2005 Elif Denel, cur-
rently the Director of ARIT, Ankara, and
Veli Sevin conducted a series of surveys I spent five weeks at Yilyüz Universitesi
in 1985, 1986, and 1987 along the high- in Van examining the pottery related to
land areas west of Bingöl along the road the late 4th and early 3rd millennium Kura
to Elâziğ by the Murat River, around the Araxes tradition and sampling some for
area that mostly was already under the Ke- petrographic analysis (see Appendix 1 and
ban Dam lake, and then across the high- below). At the time our goal was primarily
land plains of Elâziğ toward the Eu- to look for comparative material to trace
phrates (Firat) River south of the Atatürk Kura Araxes movements. However, as I ar-
Dam lake and ultimately west of the gued above, we might better start by look-
Karababa Dam lake (Sevin 1986, 1987, ing at the area as an environmentally co-
1988) (fig. 6). This area is north of Ar- herent, bounded sub-region with Ar-
slantepe across the southward bend of Eu- slantepe to its south, Erzurum to its
phrates River and south of the Aşvan sites north, and Bingöl, Solhan, and Muş to its
(Sagona 1994) and Pulur (Sakyol) (Koşay east.
1976) in the area of the Keban dam; that This area is bracketed by mountains
is, Norşuntepe, Tepecik, and Korucutepe, ranging from 300 to 3000 meters in
and others toward Lake Hazar. In Sago- height to the north and east. Transport
na’s map, most of this area would be in the across the area to the east is fairly limit-
Upper Euphrates zone. These surveys ed; the most frequented routes in the pre-
covered a very large area of often large, sent and probably in the past were along
multi-period mounds. The number of pot- the Murat River. The river itself is not nav-
sherds collected for any given period in igable in an easterly direction, although
Sevin’s survey is relatively small for any giv- rafts do frequently traverse the Murat Riv-
en period, and therefore no statistics for er to its intersection with the Euphrates
Fig. 6 – Map of sites in the area investigated by V. Sevin.
56
River to the west (Wagstaff 1973). Geo- The most common trees are oaks (Quer-
logically, the area of Aşvan is divided into cus sp), maples (Acer sp.), juniper (Ju-
distinct zones including the Upper Flood- niperus oxycedrus), hackberry (Celtuis
plain of the Murat, the Village Plain (best tournefortii), ash (Fraxinus rotundi-flia),
for agriculture), Fringing Hills (stony hills almond (Amygdalus sp.) and East Indian
averaging an incline of 15%), and Un- mastic (Pistacia khinjuk) (van Zeist
dulating Upland Basins of low rolling hills 1972:16). Poplar (Populus tremuloides) and
where Taşkun Mevkii and Taşkun Kale are ash increase at the higher elevations. To-
located. The waters of the Upland Basins day, much of what must have been ex-
feed the Village Plain (Wagstaff 1973). tensive forestland is much reduced. Row-
Similar geological zone are repeated in Sev- ton (1967) believes that it was during the
in’s survey area with the addition of 3rd millennium that much of the defor-
some higher mountain zones to the east estation occurred. Wild fruits that grow
in which no sites are evident, although in the area include grapes, pear, pistachio,
high elevation areas were probably not sur- and walnuts.
veyed by Sevin nor earlier on by Burney This area also has rich sources of cop-
(1958), who worked on a bicycle. Wagstaff per, most prominently the Ergani Maden,
(1973) likens the area to the highland but also smaller deposits near modern
plateau of Central Anatolia. Harput, Sivirice, and Palu, where a num-
The climate in this region is quite vari- ber of early sites clustered (fig. 6). A sil-
able (Wagstaff 1973). Over the past half ver-lead mine is now under the Keban
century the area received about 443 mm Dam lake (Whallon 1979:9).
of precipitation annually. The amount,
however, varies by about 17.8 percent over
a span of years, suggesting the possibili- Political Development in the Survey Area
ty of frequent crop failure. Within the year
climate comes “alternatively under the in- For the late 4th and early to mid-3rd mil-
fluence of cold, east Anatolian winter and lennia BC, this area of Elaziğ and Malatya
the hot Mesopotamian summer regime” is characterized by relatively small sites. Of
(Whallon 1979:5). The average summer the three sites whose size is listed in Sev-
temperature is 27oC, and in the winter 9 in’s publications, Tilenzit was 2.6 hectares,
days of every month the temperatures on Kovenk 3 hectares, and Poyraz 0.2 hectares
average are below 0oC. Snow, which is a at their maximum. The first two were over
key factor in explaining cultural behavior 10 meters high. Whether a feature of
in the Taurus region (Rothman 2000), modern transport or an ancient reality,
covers much of the area from November sites tend to cluster (fig. 6). One cluster
to April to a depth of 0.58 meters. The is near modern Palu, the biggest is around
average number of days with snow are 30- the Keban Dam and Lake Hazar (the Al-
40and with rain 75-100 annually (Whal- tınova), and the third is in the area be-
lon 1979). tween modern Aşvan and Elâziğ. Conti
The vegetation profile of this broader and Persiani (1993) distinguish the Aşvan
area west of the mountains and north of and Altınova as the two poles of settlement
the open plains of northern Mesopotamia with connector sites. Palu should be
falls with the area of oak-juniper forest. added as another.
57
Rothman
The area near Arslantepe would be a this same style of pottery existed (Roth-
fourth, but I agree with Conti and Persiani man, Blackman 2003). In the later 4th mil-
(1993: 393) that the area around Ar- lennium, the so-called Contact Period,
slantepe is culturally distinct (see Çalışkan population declined, and the degree of
2005 for pottery study of Sevin’s mater- connectedness (integration) continued
ial). I will be concentrating on the Elâziğ to be low. The early 3rd millennium, how-
sites. ever, saw a very different organization.
The most fully documented survey is Lupton notes both an increase in popu-
the one conducted by Whallon in the Al- lation size (the number of sites and their
tınova (fig. 7). As well done as this sur- size), and a Rank-Size analysis number
vey was, there are clearly problems with typical of a more integrated settlement sys-
the assignment of some pottery types to tem. He describes it as “pooling” (Lupton
their dates, as Whallon himself admits. For 1996: 83). There were population clus-
example, his figure 8 “Late Chalcolithic” ters, and physical spaces were created be-
pottery looks very much like the Kura tween them. In making sense of this analy-
Araxes pottery one would find in the ear- sis, one must take into account that
ly 3rd millennium farther east. However, within the early 3rd millennium Norşun-
there is not enough detail in the publi- tepe saw considerable change from a site
cation to revise it, so the following analy- dominated by square buildings and Plain
sis remains somewhat speculative. Simple Wares to buildings that would be
Nonetheless, using Rank-Size and Grav- at home in contemporaneous Armenia
ity models Lupton (1996) found changes and Georgia with a majority of Kura Arax-
in the underlying polity structures in this es wares and then to the time of the
area over time. Before the appearance of “palace” when both local painted wares of-
the Kura Araxes in the late 5th and early ten with Kura Araxes tradition designs (fig.
4th millennia, Lupton’s calculations indi- 5b) and traditional Kura Araxes wares were
cate very low political integration of the used. The numbers of sites in the Keban
sites in the survey area. For the project- occupied during LC, EB I/II, and EBIII
ed population size, the open plain offered phases paint a picture of population
much more arable land than its residents shifts (Tab. 2). A total of 14 sites are at-
needed. Despite this, the period in ques- tributed to the Late Chalcolithic, 35
tion is one in which there was much in-
teraction across the mountainous north. Category No.
This is the time, referenced above, when Total number of sites 51
the pottery was very much like LC1 and LC total 14
2 wares from northern Mesopotamia. This LC only 1
represented the end of the ‘Ubaid Period LC and EB I/II 13
and the beginning of what would be the EB I/II total 35
Early Uruk (LC 1 and 2) in the south. Ar- EB I/II only 15
chaeologists in the North Caucasus found EBIII total 14
examples of these same wares copied or EB I/II and III only 7
traded. The latter is possible to know, be- LC, EB I/II, EBIII 6
cause neutron activation analysis studies Table 2 – Keban survey counts (from Whallon 1979,
confirm that a wide area of exchange in table 8)
58
Fig. 7 – Site Distribution in the Keban and Aşvan survey area (after Whallon 1979, Figure 198; after Sa-
gona 1994, Figure 3.)
59
Rothman
Fig. 8 – Chalcolithic potsherds from Sevin Survey (Malatya sites): a. Kilisetepe 55, b. Kilisetepe 51, c Kili-
setepe 47, d. Barsikkale 9, e. Kilisetepe 52, f. Maltepe AE 1, g. Maltepe AE 1, h. Maltepe VS1, i. Maltepe
AE3, j. Maltepe AE 3, k. Karahöyük 47, l. Giriktepe 7, m. Üyücek 11, n Karababa 42, oÜyücek 29, p. Mal-
tepe AE5, q. Kızıluşağı 33, r. Hasikli 22, s. Maltepe VS2, t. Kilisetepe 21, u. Hasilkli 1, v. Kilisetepe 21, w.
Kilisetepe 69, x. Maltepe 6, y. Kızıluşağı 6, z. Kilisetepe 17, aa. Kızıluşağı 25, bb. Kızıluşağı 3, cc. Üyücek
12, dd. Hasikli 28, ee. Nalıhasan 4, ff. Kilisetepe 54, gg. Maltepe AE5, hh. Hasikli 2, ii. Kilisetepe 66.
60
sites are attributed to the Early Bronze I/II, Site LC EB KA

and 14 to the Early Bronze III (Tab. 2). Çinaz 10 3 1
All but one LC site has Early Bronze I/II Cip 4 4 1
on top, although 22 Early Bronze I/II sites Çuhadar 0 5 0
were first established in that period. This Dilektepe 0 4 (EB/KA?) 24
can be interpreted to indicate the increase Erenzit 0 0 2
in population Lupton suggests, as well as Fethiye 0 0 8
the likelihood that some of this increase Gökçe 2 4 23
represents new occupants who are asso- Gülümtepe 0 0 4
ciated with the Kura Araxes tradition. Hilindir 0 4? 0
One of the major problems we have in Hinsor 0 7 48
interpreting the material here is a very con- Hoşmat 2 3 7
fused and confusing chronological system. Isaköy 0 2 0
What is Late Chalcolithic in the Taurus Karahöyük 1? 0 16
and Mesopotamia is Early Bronze 1 in the Kilisetepe 4 0 18
South Caucasus. While Godin and Yanik Kizilaşağı 5 0 4
Tepe are transitioning to a time after Kura Könk 3 4 16
Araxes pottery was used from 2600- Kövenk 0 1? 13
2400 BC, other areas are at the height of Maltepe 2 0 1
Kura Araxes occupation. Sagona’s Kura Pınartepe 1? 9 22
Araks I-III scheme (1984) does not fit Pirincik 0 13 (EB/KA)+9 23
Smith and Badalyan’s Kura Araxes I and Poyraz 0 3 (EB/KA)+8 28
II scheme (Smith et alii 2009). What ex- Sekerat 2 1 4
actly EB I is versus II or III across the Tadim 0 2 5
whole region is probably too confused to Tanrıvermi 0 1 1
salvage. Tigram Köyü 0 3 2
This and other factors make the case of Tilenzit 1 2 2
the areas surveyed by Sevin far from sim- Üyücek 2 2 3
ple to interpret. I am basically dividing the
Table 3 – Counts of potsherds by period.
time into Late Chalcolithic (LC) to mean
the Northern Mesopotamian material
in the later part of the 4th millennium BC er wares by the predominance of chaff
and Early Bronze (EB) to mean the first tempering and color. Some forms con-
four centuries of the 3rd millennium BC. tinued (compare fig. 8 to 9, 10, and 11).
As I wrote above, there are clearly periods Perhaps, because they were exposed to the
of change within each, but since I can only elements, the Kura Araxes ware and what
paint a picture of the survey area with a I believe are variants of Plain Simple Wares
broad brush, this realistically is what I can were rather crude. Palumbi (2008: 276)
hope to do. may be right that we need a new desig-
In that survey, ten of the thirty sites nation, what he calls Monochrome Bur-
with early 3rd millennium BC strata in the nished pottery. His defined group is
survey (Table 3) sat on top of strata with somewhat limited, apparently leaving
Late Chalcolithic pottery. The LC wares out smaller black burnished wares, but
were clearly distinguishable from the lat- Sevin’s survey material, the material from
61
Rothman
Fig. 9 – Kura Araxes potsherds from Sevin survey, contrasting color sherds (Malatya sites): a. Fethiye 7, b.
Kilisetepe 63, c. Kilistepe 4, d. Kilisetepe 22, e. Üyücek 8, f. Kilisetepe 25, g. Kilisetepe 59, h. Kilisetepe 8,
i. Kilisetepe 26, j. Kızıluşağı 5, k. Kilisetepe 13, l. Kilisetepe 10, m. Karahöyük 17, n. Kızıluşağı 10, o. Fethiye
4, p. Fethiye 33, q. Karahöyük 8, r. Höyükköy 1, s. Karahöyük 13, t. Karahöyük 15, u. Karahöyük 10, v.
Kilisetepe 9, w. Karahöyük 14, x. Kilisetepe 3, y. Karahöyük 19, z. Karahöyük 20, aa. Karahöyük 27.
62
Aşvan sites (Sagona 1994), and the Keban course fraction, the samples could be di-
(Whallon 1979) seem to fit a common set vided into 4 basic groups (see Tab. 4).
of types, mostly distinctive from many Whereas these groups are statistically
South Caucasian and Khirbet Kerak and valid, their meaning is less clear. They do
even Arslantepe material. Except for the not correlate with techno-form, in that
color, it was often hard to for me to dis- construction with two separate and dis-
tinguish the EB (Plain Simple Ware) tinct slabs occurs in each group, as do
from the Kura Araxes. Reserved slip and forms with a single slab core and slips
Maltya/Elâziğ or Karababa painted wares (Tab. 4). Groupings 1, 2, and 4, cross the
are an exception to this. Features like a tri- area of the Sevin’s surveys. In the end, the
angle rim on pots, often cooking vessels, analysis indicates that there is tremendous
is a common feature of the Plain Simple variability in the creation of clay bodies
Wares (Algaze 1990), but occurred fre- for pottery making, and elements of clay
quently in our sample, often but not al- sourcing and tempering material is more
ways on Kura Araxes pots. This feature similar to other local sites than to ones
also occurs at Shengavit in the putative from, for example, the South Caucasus.
homeland (personal observation). No In fact, “sample mineralogy seems to cor-
sites were entirely represented by typical relate more strongly with site origin than
Kura Araxes types. Vessels in the catego- with culture” (Schwartz et alii 2009:
ry of small (eating?) pots (fig. 9m) were 148). In other words, people living at the
the finest made ones. The great majori- sites are producing all sorts of wares
ty of the pots were undecorated, and the with the same mineral base. As mentioned
few that were had raised designs (fig. 5b), above, pottery making seems to be do-
except Hilindir, which did not have Kura mestic.
Araxes shapes or surface treatment. Overall, the picture that emerges from
There are certainly similarities as well Sevin’s data and related material is of an
as differences in shape. Are they very lo- area isolated from its adjoining regions,
calized or part of a broader pattern in but more connected to the South Cau-
terms of their techno-form? A petro- casus than to Northern Mesopotamia.
graphic analysis of a sample of potsherds Still, they are not so closely connected as
revealed a number of patterns (Schwartz measured by similarities of pottery dec-
et alii 2009). The minerals employed for oration and form, but with both similar
tempering and elements of the clays and different kinds of forming tech-
themselves indicate that often the clays niques of the fabric. Even when, as Lup-
were mined near river banks. According ton’s (1996) measurements suggest, there
to Schwartz et alii (2009) Karahöyük 18 is pooling, the size of the pool is rather
and Pınartepe 7 had such similar inclu- small. Connections to the world outside
sions. His team speculated that the clays of the mountainous region were limited,
could have been from the same source, but as Conti, Persiani (1993). Perhaps its in-
these two sites are the farthest apart in the teraction spheres were more directed to the
Sevin survey. Both are near the Murat Riv- mountains north and east. I find it hard
er, but one is in the plain west of the Eu- to believe that somehow Kura Araxes in-
phrates and the other is an area near pass- terrupted such connection, especially
es through higher mountains. Using the with the Mesopotamian world. In a
63
Rothman
Site number Culture Description fabric

Group 1
Hinsor 32 KA Monochrome
Hinsor 8 KA Monochrome core with thick slip
Karahöyük 11 KA Monochrome with thick slip
Kilisetepe 6 KA Monochrome dense
Könk 11 KA Bicolor slabs
Kövenk 8 KA Bi-color red black slabs
Pınartepe 27 KA Monochrome with thick slip
Group 2
Karahöyük 14 KA Bi-color dense
Könk 14 KA Bicolor slabs exterior thin
Könk 28 KA Dense high fired with over-fired slip
Kilisetepe 10 KA Monochrome
Group 3
Picirik 10 KA Monochrome
Picirik 19 KA monochrome
Group 4
Karahöyük 8 KA Bicolor red black slabs
Karahöyük 18 KA Bichrome dense
Kilisetepe 47 LC Monochrome single layer
Kövenk 32 KA Bicolor
Pınartepe 18 KA Monochrome core with thick slip
Pınartepe 21 KA Bicolor red black slabs
Tilenzit 25 EB Bicolor slabs
Tilenzit 27 KA Dense monochrome core thick slip
Pınartepe 28 KA Monochrome thin slip
Remainder
Dilektepe 25 KA Monochrome gray thin slips
Hinsor 17 KA monochrome with thick
Hinsor 2 KA Dense momocherome with thick slip
Karahöyük 13 KA Even thick core with slips
Karahöyük 17 KA Bichrome biase black
Karahöyük 21 KA Bi-color red black slabs
Kiziluşağı 6 LC Dense gray slabs
Kiziluşağı 7 KA Dense gray two slabs
Könk 10 KA Dense red brown chunky grit
Könk 33 EB Even dense well fired
Kövenk 9 KA Gray bichrome gray black slabs
Picirik 45 KA Bi-color slabs
Pınartepe 10 KA Dense crumbly slip and burnish
Pınartepe 5 KA Crumbly core thin slip
Sekrat 14 LC Black core thin slip
Tigram Köy 11 EB Monochrome
Table 4 – Mineralogical groups and basic fabric.
64
Fig. 10 – Kura Araxes potsherds from Sevin survey, contrasting color sherds (Malatya sites): a. Kilisetepe
11, b. Üyücek 4, c. Üyücek 5, d. Üyücek 10, e. Fethiye 6, f. Karahöyük 18, g. Karahöyük48, h. Isaköy 12,
i. Kilisetepe 15, j. Hasikli 6, k. Fethiye 3, l. Karahöyük 11, m. Üyücek 3, n. Isaköy 10, o. Fethiye 5, p. Fethiye
8, q. Karahöyük 12, r. Karahöyük 38, s. Üyücek 1, t. Karahöyük 21.
65
Rothman
Fig. 11 – Kura Araxes potsherds from Sevin survey, color sherds (Malatya sites): contrasting color: a. Kili-
setepe 20, b. Karahöyük 9, c. Hasikli 24, d. Fethiye 9, e. Kilisetepe 18, f. Karababa 5, g. Kilisetepe 18, h.
Kızıluşağı 7, black color: i. Fethiye 42, j. Fethiye 10, k. Kilisetepe 19, brown ware: l. Üyücek 13, m. Kili-
setepe 61, n. Kilisetepe 60, o. Hasikli 8, p. Kızıluşağı 2, q. Maltepe VS 4, r. Kızıluşağı 11, buff: s. Kale 1,
3, t. Kilisetepe 44, u. Hasikli 18, v. Kilisetepe 62, gray:x.Kilisetepe 6, y. Kilisetepe 1, z. Dilek Tepe 68 (Elâ-
ziğ).
66
balkanized Mesopotamian landscape, lo- seem to increase (Conti, Persiani 1993),

cal areas are likely to become more isolated the size of polities seems small indeed.
and focus on local, subsistence strategies. There were small zones of development,
We are likely to see new populations like the one in the Keban Dam lake area
whose identity is connected to the moun- and the plains to its southwest, the one in
tains emphasizing those strategies. A the Aşvan area, one along the Euphrates,
broad coherent picture is unlikely to and one west of the city of Elaziğ. The in-
emerge. Rather very particular local man- crease of sites with black burnished pot-
ifestations would dominate. This open, tery, many of which can be attributed to
de-centralized organization presents good the early third millennium BC suggests
opportunities for frequently migrating cultural contact with the South Caucasus,
small clans to find a place in this land- and probably the presence of people
scape. Whether that landscape was so at- making that Kura Araxes pottery. How-
tractive because the migrants had tech- ever, by the same token, the similarities
nologies or skills to offer will depend on with Malatya sites, including Arslantepe
detailed excavations, which the current po- in ceramics hints at the likelihood that
litical situation in Turkey may prevent for some of these people were already adapt-
a time. That is how I hypothesize that a ed to the more optimal lowland envi-
picture just beginning to emerge of the an- ronments west of the high mountains.
cient reality might be understood. They could have come from Malatya as
readily as from the lands between the Kura
and Araxes Rivers. Overall, I think we
CONCLUSION need to concentrate more on a series of ar-
eas within the umbrella of the Kura
The analysis presented here cannot sus- Araxes cultural tradition: (1) the South
tain a real conclusion. We have many Caucasus into Erzurum, (2) Iran east and
more questions than our data provides south of (former) Lake Urmia, (3) the
clear answers. The size of the sample from Taurus zone from the western side of Ur-
the Sevin surveys also limits what we can mia to the eastern part of Elaziğ, (4) the
safely say about the sites mentioned here. area of Malatya near the Euphrates, in-
Certainly, no pottery analysis is going to cluding Arslantepe, and (5) the Amuq and
be able to paint a clear enough picture of Khirbet Kerak. There will be all sorts of
what was happening through time in this variations within these areas, but clearly
area. the trajectory of Arslantepe and Shengavit,
Still, the area of ancient Elaziğ and Mokhra Blur, and Gegharot, for example,
northern Malatya is very likely a marginal are very different over time.
zone. There is little in the variation in pot- What we need now is a much more
tery or in settlement patterns to suggest precise typology based on more well ex-
that a more central, integrating organi- cavated sites with radiocarbon dates
zation had developed there in the latest 4th from secure proveniences. We need
and early 3rd millennia BC. Even at the more data. Given the subtle and exten-
end of the Early Bronze Age, when the sive variations, we need more informa-
palace was built at Norşuntepe and con- tion than the normal presentation in
nections with lower elevation Malatya book form can provide. Given the ubiq-
67
Rothman
uitous presence of clouds of internet data, complexity that probably are not ones ap-
we should encourage scholars to share plied to Mesopotamia.
more information on their pottery’s A few decades ago, the Uruk and re-
manufacturing, shapes, functions, and lated cultures of the North and East were
style. We did for Godin Tepe. Anyone similarly unexplained. There is hope
can go to https://tspace.library utoron- that these cultures of the mountains
to.ca.handle/1807/26556 and down- will be better understood in the decades
load the full data set for Godin IV pot- to come.
tery, as well as fieldnotes, catalogs, and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS – This project was made
many pictures. We plan to do the same possible through the kindness of Prof. Dr. Veli
for Shangavit with every diagnostic pot- Sevin. When I asked if it were possible to study
sherd from a reliable provenience typed this material, he was as always ready and en-
and measured, along with a color pho- thusiastic to help. He is one of the great schol-
tograph front and back of pottery from ars and gentlemen of Turkish archaeology.
each locus. All non-diagnostics will be Along with Elif Denel, now Director of ARIT,
Ankara, we conducted 5 weeks of study at the
classified as fine, utility, or cooking Yilyüz Universitesi in Van. Our time there was
ware, and counted. I had proposed an made possible and very pleasant by Dr. Aynur
Early Transcaucasian web archive and Özfirat and her students, and Dr. Sinan Kiliç.
even set it up, but when I asked the peo- Our sincerest thanks are due to them all.
ple who had wanted to participate to Thanks as well to the University of Pennsylvania
contribute, I received little. Probably a Museum and to the keeper of the Near East Sec-
site-by-site series of web archives would tion, Katy Blanchard, for permitting me to work
with Yanik and Beth Shean material and to pub-
be more practical. lish some of it here. Thanks to Hülya Çalişkan
We also need a new chronological Akgül for giving us her drawings and permit-
nomenclature to unite the Early Bronze ting us to use them for this analysis and pub-
and Kura Araxes sequences. We need new lication.
studies of the ancient environments and
comparative work on animal husbandry * Widener University
and crop choice. We need measures of Chester, Pennsylvania, USA
APPENDIX 1
1= site; 2=province, 3=pot no.; 4=body part; 5=shape; 6=exterior surface treatment 1; 7=ex-
terior surface treatment 2; 8=interior surface treatment 1; 9=interior surface treatment 2; 10=ex-
terior color; 11=interior color; 12=core color; 13=additional comments; 14=shape (figure, letter);
15= exterior/interior slip?; 16= temper; 17= Handmade (HM) or Wheel made (WM); 18=firing
(L)ow, (M)edium, (H)igh; 9 body thickness (mm.); 20= other thickness (rim, base); 21= cir-
cumference (centimeters); 22=period/ group LC= Late Chalcolithic (4th millennium BC), KA=
Kura Araxes (/Early Transcaucasian), EB, Early Bronze); 23= sampled for petrography.
10-12 Munsell equivalents: light red (10R7/6), red (7.5R5/8), light brown (10YR7/3, 6/2, 5YR
8/2), buff (7.5YR8/3); red brown (2.5YR 5/4), brown (7.5YR 5/4), black (N2.5), dark gray (N4),
gray (N6).
68
69
Rothman
70
71
Rothman
72
73
Rothman
74
75
Rothman
76
77
Rothman
78
79
Rothman
80
81
Rothman
82
83
Rothman
84
85
Rothman
86
87
Rothman
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ALGAZE G. 1990 - Town and Country in – 2013 - The fruits of migration: Under-
Southeastern Anatolia Volume I, Oriental In- standing the ‘longue duree’ and the socio-
stitute Press: Chicago. economic relations of the Early Transcau-
– 1993 - The Uruk World System, University casian Culture, Journal of Anthropological Ar-
of Chicago Press: Chicago. chaeology 32: 449-477.
AKGȔL ÇALIŞKAN H. 2012 - Looking to the BATIUK S., ROTHMAN M. S. 2007 - Ear-
West: the Late Chalcolithic Red-Black ly Transcaucasian Cultures and their Neigh-
Ware of the Upper Euphrates Region, Orig- bors- Unraveling Migration, Trade, and As-
ini XXXIV: 97-109. similation, Expedition 49 (1): 7-17.
ANTHONY D. 1990 - Migration in Archae- BLACKMAN M. J., STEIN G., VAN DIVER
ology: The Baby and the Bathwater, Amer- P. 1993 - The Standardization Hypothesis
ican Anthropologist 92 (4): 895-914. and Ceramic Mass Production: Technolog-
– 2007 - The Wheel, the Horse, and Language, ical, Compositional, and Metric Indexes of
Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ. Craft Specialization at Tell Leilan, Syria,
ALI N. 2005 - The Development of Pottery Tech- American Antiquity 58(1): 60-80.
nology from the Late Sixth to the Fifth Mil- BURNEY C. 1958 - Eastern Anatolia in the
lennium B.C. in Northern Jordan, BAR in- Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age, Anato-
ternational Series 1422, Oxford. lian Studies 8: 157-208.
ARESHIAN G. E. 2007 - From Extended Fam- BURNEY C., LANG D. 1971 - The Peoples of
ilies to Incipient Polities: The Trajectory of the Hills, Weidenfeld and Nicolson: London.
Social Complexity in the Early Bronze Age ÇALIŞKAN H. 2005 - Malatya-Elazığ illeri
of the Ararat Plain, in Social Orders and So- Fırat Vadisi yerleşimleri çanak çömlek
cial Landscapes, Popova L., Hartley C., malzemesinin incelenmesi [Studies on the
Smith A. eds. Cambridge, Cambridge Schol- pottery of Euphrates Valley in the Malatya-
ars Press: 26-54. Elazığ region], Dissertation, Yilyüz Üniver-
ARESHIAN G. E., GASPARYAN B., sitesi Van.
AVETISYAN P. S., PINHASI R., WILKIN- CONTI A. M., PERSIANI C. 1993 - When
SON K., SMITH A., HOVSEPYAN R., Worlds Collide: Cultural Developments
ZARDARYAN D. 2012 - The Chalcolith- in Eastern Anatolia in the Early Bronze Age,
ic of the Near East and South-eastern Eu- in Between the Rivers and Over the Mountains,
rope: discoveries and new perspectives from Frangipane M., Hauptmann H., Liverani
the cave complex Areni-1, Armenia, Antiq- M., Metthiae P., Mellinck M. eds., Uni-
uity 86 (2012): 115-130. versità di Roma, Roma: 361-414.
ARNOLD D. E. 1989 - Patterns of Learning, DI NOCERA G. 2005-2003 - Archaeological
Residence, and Descent Among Potters in Survey in the Malatya Territory, Araştırma
Ticul, Yucatán, Mexico, in Archaeological Ap- Sonuçları Toplantısı XXVI, T.C. Kültür ve
proaches to Cultural Identity, Shennan S., ed., Turizm Bakanlığı, Ankara: 24-26.
George Allen and Unwin., London: 174-184. FRANGIPANE M. 1997a - A 4th Millennium
– 1993 - Ecology and Ceramic Production in an Temple/Palace Complex at Arslantepe-
Andean Community, Cambridge University Malatya. North-South Relations and the For-
Press: Cambridge. mation of Early State Societies in the North-
BAHŞALIYEV V. 1997 - Nahçivan Arkeolojisi, ern Regions of Greater Mesopotamia,
Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları: Istanbul. Paléorient 23 (1): 45-73.
BATIUK S. 2005 - Migration Theory and the – 1997b - Changes in Upper Mesopotamia/
Distribution of the Early Transcaucasian Anatolian Relations at the Beginning of the
Culture. Doctoral dissertation, University of 3rd Millennium B.C., Subartu IV (1):195-
Toronto. 218.
88
– 2010. Economic Centralisation in Formative Kura Araxes Homeland and Diaspora Ce-
States. The Archaeological Reconstruction of the ramic Technology, TÜBA-AR 13: 245-
Economic System in 4th Millennium Ar- 262.
slantepe, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”: ISERLIS M. 2009 - Khirbet Kerak Ware at Bet
Roma. Yeraḥ: Segregation and Integration through
FRANGIPANE M., PALUMBI G. 2007 - Technology, Tel Aviv 36 (2): 181-195.
Red-Blackware, Pastoralism, Trade, and KOHL P. 2007 - The Making of Bronze Age
Anatolian-Transcaucasian Interaction in Eurasia. Cambridge University Press: Cam-
the 4th-3rd Millennium BC, in Les Cultures bridge.
du Caucase, Bertille Lyonnet, ed., CNRS Edi- KOŞAY H. 1976 - Keban Project Pulur Exca-
tions. Paris: 232-255. vations 1968-70, Middle East Technical Uni-
GREENBERG R. 2007 - Transcaucasian Col- versity Keban Project, Series III, 1: Ankara.
ors: Khirbet Kerak Ware at Khirbet Kerak KRAMER C. 1977 - Pots and Peoples, in
(Tel Bet Yera ), in Les Cultures du Caucase, Mountains and Lowlands, Levine L., Cuyler
Bertille Lyonnet ed. CNRS Editions, Paris: T., Young Jr. eds., Malibu, Undena Press:
257-268. 91-112.
GREENBERG R., GOREN Y. 2009 - Intro- – 1997 - Pottery in Rajasthan, Smithsonian In-
duction: Migrating Technologies at the stitute Press: Washington, DC.
Cusp of the Early Bronze Age III, Tel Aviv KUSHNAREVA K. 1993 - Южный Кавказ
36: 129-134. в IX-II тыс. до н.э. Этапы культурного
HAUPTMANN H. 1976 - Die Grabungen и социально-экономического развития,
aud dem Norşun-Tepe 1972, Keban Project Санкт-Петербург.
1972 Activities, METU, Ankara: 71-90. – 1997 - The South Caucasus in Prehistory:
– 1982 - Die Grabungen aud dem Norşun- Stages of Cultural and Socioeconomic Devel-
Tepe 1974, in Keban Projesi 1974-75 Çal- opment from the Eighth to the Second Mil-
işmalari, METU, Ankara: 41-94. lennium BC (translated by H. Michael),
HAYRAPETYAN A. 2008 - Some Technical University Museum Publications: Philadel-
Aspects of the Pottery of the Early Bronze phia.
Age Site of Gegharot, in Ceramics in Tran- LEBEAU M. 2000 - Stratified Archaeological
sitions, Rubinson K., Sagona A. eds. Peeters, Evidence and Compared Periodization in the
Leuven: 71-78. Syrian Jezirah during the Third Millennium
HELWING B. 1999 - Cultural Interaction at B.C., in Chronologies des Pays du Caucase et
Hassek Höyük: New Evidence from Pottery L’Euphrate aux IVe-IIIe Millenaires, Marro C.,
Analysis. The Uruk Expansion: Northern Hauptmann H. eds., DeBoccard, Paris:
Perspectives from Hacınebi, Hassek Höyük, 167-192.
and Gawra, Stein G. ed., Paléorient 25 (1): LONDON G. 1991 - Standardization and
91-100. Variatin in the Work of Craft Specialists, in
HENRICKSON E., MCDONALD M. 1983 Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology, Longacre W.
- Ceramic Form and Function: An Ethno- ed., University of Arizona Press, Tucson:
graphic Search and an Archaeological Ap- 182-204.
plication, American Anthropologist 85 (3): LUPTON A. 1996 - Stability and Change: So-
630-643. cio-political Development in North Meso-
HENRICKSON R. 2011 - The Godin Peri- potamia and South-east Anatolia 4000-2700
od III Town, in On the High Road: the His- BC, BAR International Series 627, Oxford.
tory of Godin Tepe, Iran, Gopnick H., LYONNET B. 2007 - La Culture de Maïkop,
Rothman M. S. eds., ROM Press/ Mazda la Transcaucasie, l’Anatolie Orientale et le
Press, Toronto: 209-282. Proche-Orient: relations et cronologie, in Les
ISERLIS M., GREENBERG R., BADALYAN Cultures du Caucase, Lyonnet B. ed., CNRS
R., GOREN Y. 2010 - Beth Yeraḥ, Aparan Editions, Paris: 133-162.
III, and Karnut I: Preliminary Comments on MARRO C. 2007 - Upper Mesopotamia and
89
Rothman
Transcauxcasia in the Late Chalcolithic Pe- The University of Pennsylvania Museum

riod (4000-3500 BC), in Les Cultures du Publications: Philadelphia.
Caucase, Lyonnet B. ed., CNRS Editions, – 2003a - Ripples in the Stream: Transcau-
Paris: 77-94. casia-Anatolian Interaction in the Mu-
MUNCHAYEV R.М. 1975 - Кавказ на rat/Euphrates Basin at the Beginning of the
заре бронзового века, Москва. Third Millennium B.C., in Archaeology in the
OATES J., OATES D. 1994 - Tell Brak: A Borderlands: Investigations in Caucasia and
Stratigraphic Summary, 1976-1993, Iraq 56: Beyond, Smith A., Rubinson K. eds., Cot-
167-176. sen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA, Los An-
– 1997 - An Open Gate: Cities of the 4th Mil- geles: 95-110.
lennium B.C. (Tell Brak 1997), Cambridge – 2003b - Style and Adaptation along The
Archaeological Journal 7(2): 287-307. Turkish-Iranian Borderland, in Yeki Bud,
OATES D., OATES J., EMBERLING G., Yeki Nabud: Essays in honor of William
MCDONALD H. in preparation - Tell Brak Sumner, Miller N., Abdi K. eds., Cotsen In-
in the Fourth Millennium BC, Tell Brak v. stitute of Archaeology, UCLA, Los Angeles:
3, McDonald Institute of Archaeological Re- 207-216.
search and London: British School of Ar- – 2006 - Transcaucasians: Settlement, Mi-
chaeology in Iraq: Cambridge. gration, and Trade in the Kura-Araxes Pe-
PALUMBI G. 2008 - The Red and the Black: riods, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran
Social and Cultural Interaction between the und Turan 37: 53-62.
Upper Euphrates and outh Caucasus Com- – 2011 - Migration and Re-Settlement: Godin
munities in the Fourth and Third Millenni- Period IV, in On the High Road: the Histo-
um B.C., Università di Roma, La Sapienza: ry of Godin Tepe, Iran, Gopnick H., Roth-
Roma. man M. S eds., ROM Press/ Mazda Press,
PAZ S. 2012 - Changing Households at the Rise Toronto: 138-206.
of Urbanism: The EB I–II Transition at Tel – n.d. - Explaining the Kura Araxes, Proceed-
Bet Yeraḥ, in New Perspectives in Household ings of the 2012 Eurasian Conference, Smith
Archaeology, Parker B., Foster C. eds., Eisen- A. ed.
braun’s, Winona Lake, IN: 407-436. ROTHMAN M. S. ed. 2001 - Uruk
PIOTROVSKIY B.B. 1949a - Arkheologiya Za- Mesopotamia and its Neighbors: Cross-cultural
kavkazya, Leningrad. Interactions in the Era of State Formation,
– 1949b - Pseleniya mednogo veka v Armenii, Rothman M. ed., SAR Press, Santa Fe.
Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 11:171-184. ROTHMAN M. S, FUENSANTA J. G. 2003
POTTS D. 1999 - The Archaeology of Elam, - The Archaeology of the Early Bronze I and
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. II Periods in Southeastern Turkey and
ROTHMAN M. S. 2000 - Environmental and North Syria, in Köyden Kente Dogu’da Ilk Yer-
Cultural Factors in the Development of Set- leşimler, Özdogan M., Hauptmann H.,
tlement in a Marginal, Highland Zone, in Basgelen N. eds., Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayin-
The Archaeology of Jordan and Beyond: Essays ları, Istanbul: 583-622.
in Honor of James A. Sauer, Stager L. E., ROTHMAN M. S, BLACKMAN M. J. 2003
Greene J. A., Coogan M. D. eds., Eisen- - Late Fifth Millennium Exchange Sys-
brauns, Winona Lake, Ind.: 429-43. tems in Northern Mesopotamia: Chemical
– 2001 - The Tigris Piedmont and Eastern Characterization of Sprig and Impressed
Jazira in the Fourth Millennium B.C., in Wares, Al-Rafidan: XXIV: 1-24.
Uruk Mesopotamia and its Neighbors: Cross- ROTHMAN M. S, KOZBE G. 1997 - Muş
cultural Interactions in the Era of State For- in the Early Bronze Age, Anatolian Studies
mation. Rothman M. ed., SAR Press, San- 47: 105-126.
ta Fe: 349-402. ROWTON M. 1967 - The Woodlands of An-
– 2002 - Tepe Gawra: the Evolution of a cient Western Asia, Journal of Near Eastern
Small, Prehistoric Center in Northern Iraq, Studies 26: 261-277.
90
SAGONA A. 1984 - The Caucasian Region in Issues in the Archaeology of Old World
the Early Bronze Age, BAR International Se- Complex Societies, Journal of Archaeological
ries 214: Oxford. Research 6 (1): 1-44.
– 1994 - The Aşvan Sites 3: The Early Bronze – 2001 - Understanding Ancient State So-
Age, The British Institute of Archaeology: cieties in the Old World, in Archaeology at
Ankara. the Millennium, Feinman G., Price T. D.
– 1998 - Social Identity and Religious Ritu- eds., Kluwer Academic, New York: 353-
al in the Kura-Araxes Cultural Complex: 379.
Some Observations from Sös Höyük, – 2010 - Local Identities and Interaction
Mediterranean Archaeology 11: 13-25. Spheres: Modeling Regional Variation in the
– 2000 - Sös Höyük and the Erzurum Region ‘Ubaid Horizon, in Beyond the Ubaid:
in Late Prehistory: a provisional chronolo- Transformation and Integration in the Late
gy for Northeastern Anatolia, in Chronolo- Prehistoric Societies of the Middle East, Carter
gies des Pays du Caucase et L’Euphrates aux IVe R., Philip G. eds., Oriental Institute Stud-
IIIe Millenaires, Marro C., Hauptmann H., ies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 63,
DeBoccard. Paris: 329-374. Chicago: 23-44.
– n.d. - Rethinking the Kura Araxes Genesis. STEIN G. ed. 1999 - The Uruk Expansion:
SCHWARTZ M., ERDMAN K., MORI- Northern Perspectives from Hacınebi, Has-
SON M. 2009 - Migration, Diffusion, and sek Höyük, and Gawra, Paléorient 25 (1):
Emulation: Petrographic Comparisons, An- 7-181.
cient Near Eastern Studies 46: 138-159. SUMMERS G. n.d. - Yanik Tepe Northwestern
SEVIN V. 1986 - Malatya-Elâziğ -Bingöl Illeri Iran: The Early Transcaucasian Period,
Yüzey Ara ş tırması, 1985, Ara ş tırma Stratigraphy and Architecture, Peeters: Bel-
SonuçlarıToplantısı IV, T.C. Kültür ve Tur- gium.
izm Bakanlığı, Ankara: 279-300. VAN ZEIST W. 1972 - Palaeobotanical Results
– 1987- Elâziğ-Bingöl Illeri Yüzey Araştırması, of 1970 Season at Çayönü, Turkey, Hele-
1986, Araştırma SonuçlarıToplantısı V, nium 12:3-19.
T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı. Ankara: VOIGT M. 1992 - Chapter 6, Iran, in
1-44. Chronologies in Old World Archaeology,
– 1988 - Elâziğ-Bingöl Illeri Yüzey Araştırması, Ehrich R. ed., Chicago, University of Chica-
1987, Araştırma SonuçlarıToplantısı VI, go Press: 125-153.
T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, Ankara: WAGSTAFF M. 1973 - Physical Geography
451-500. and Settlements (Interim Report on Aşvan
SIMONYAN H., ROTHMAN M. S, n.d. - Survey), Anatolian Studies 23:197-215.
Regarding Ritual Behaviour at Shengavit, Ar- WHALLON R. 1979 - An Archaeological Sur-
menia. Ancient Near Eastern Studies. vey of the Keban Reservoir Area of East-Cen-
SMITH A. 2005 - Prometheus Unbound: The tral Turkey, Memoir 11, Museum of An-
South Caucasus in Prehistory, Journal of thropology, University of Michigan: Ann Ar-
World Prehistory 19/4: 229-279. bor.
SMITH A., BADALYAN R., AVETISYAN P. WINTER I. 1980 - A Decorated Breastplate from
2009 - The Archaeology and Geography of An- Hasanlu, Iran, University of Pennsylvania
cient Transcaucasian Societies, Volume 1: Museum Press: Philadelphia.
The Foundations of Research and Regional Sur- WRIGHT G. 1969 - Obsidian Analyses and
vey in the Tsaghkahovit Plain, Armenia, Prehistoric Near Eastern Trade: 7500 to 3500
OIP 134, Oriental Institute: Chicago. B.C., Papers of the Museum of Anthro-
STEIN G. 1998 - Heterogeneity, Power, and pology 37, University of Michigan: Ann Ar-
Political Economy: Some Current Research bor.
91
THIS ISSUE CONTAINS
INVESTIGATING DOMESTIC ECONOMY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC
ISSN 0474-6805
IN EASTERN ANATOLIA: THE CASE OF ARSLANTEPE PERIOD VIII
Cristiano Vignola, Francesca Balossi Restelli, Alessia Masi,
Laura Sadori, Giovanni Siracusano
KURA ARAXES CULTURE AREAS AND THE LATE 4TH AND EARLY 3RD MILLENNIA BC POTTERY
FROM VELI SEVIN’S SURVEYS IN MALATYA AND ELAZIĞ, TURKEY
Mitchell S. Rothman
CULTURAL ENTANGLEMENT AT THE DAWN OF THE EGYPTIAN HISTORY:

A VIEW FROM THE NILE FIRST CATARACT REGION
Maria Carmela Gatto
PASTORAL STATES: TOWARD A COMPARATIVE ARCHAEOLOGY OF EARLY KUSH

Geoff Emberling
A CLAY DOOR-LOCK SEALING FROM THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE III TEMPLE
AT TEL HAROR, ISRAEL
Baruch Brandl, Eliezer D. Oren, Pirhiya Nahshoni
CASE BASTIONE: A PREHISTORIC SETTLEMENT IN THE EREI UPLANDS (CENTRAL SICILY)

Enrico Giannitrapani, Filippo Iannì, Salvatore Chilardi, Lorna Anguilano
OLD OR NEW WAVES IN CAPO GRAZIANO DECORATIVE STYLES?

Sara T. Levi, Maria Clara Martinelli, Paola Vertuani, John Ll.Williams

Kura Araxes Culture Areas and The Late 4 PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Kura Araxes Culture Areas and The Late 4 PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

“SAPIENZA” UNIVERSITÀ DI ROMA

DIPARTIMENTO DI SCIENZE DELL’ANTICHITÀ – MUSEO DELLE ORIGINI

XXXVI PREHISTORY AND PROTOHISTORY

Fondata da / Review Founder

“SAPIENZA” UNIVERSITÀ DI ROMA

PREHISTORY AND PROTOHISTORY

Gestione editoriale e distribuzione

Direttore Responsabile / Editor in chief: Marcella Frangipane

Curatori Associati / Associate Editors:

Comitato scientifico / Scientific Board:

Revisione grafica / Graphic editing: Giovanni Carboni

Responsabile dei cambi / Appointee for review exchanges: Maurizio Moscoloni

I manoscritti da sottoporre per la pubblicazione vanno inviati a / Submission of papers to be

Registrazione al Tribunale di Roma n. 35/2000 (già registrata al n. 11810/1967)

La Rivista è stata stampata con il contributo dell’Ateneo

7 INVESTIGATING DOMESTIC ECONOMY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC

93 CULTURAL ENTANGLEMENT AT THE DAWN OF THE EGYPTIAN HISTORY: A VIEW FROM

125 PASTORAL STATES: TOWARD A COMPARATIVE ARCHAEOLOGY OF EARLY KUSH

213 OLD OR NEW WAVES IN CAPO GRAZIANO DECORATIVE STYLES?

245 Recensioni / Reviews

INTRODUCTION Mesopotamia state-level societies evolved

Fig. 1 – Distribution of Kura Araxes (Early Transcaucasian sites).

Bronze Age pottery in northern made by the right-handed potters, his

Fig. 2 – Distribution of Pottery Style Groups.

Another element is shape (fig. 4a, b ed above, a degree of overall similarity is

Fig. 6 – Map of sites in the area investigated by V. Sevin.

sites are attributed to the Early Bronze I/II, Site LC EB KA

Site number Culture Description fabric

Table 4 – Mineralogical groups and basic fabric.

balkanized Mesopotamian landscape, lo- seem to increase (Conti, Persiani 1993),

Transcauxcasia in the Late Chalcolithic Pe- The University of Pennsylvania Museum

INVESTIGATING DOMESTIC ECONOMY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE LATE CHALCOLITHIC

CULTURAL ENTANGLEMENT AT THE DAWN OF THE EGYPTIAN HISTORY:

PASTORAL STATES: TOWARD A COMPARATIVE ARCHAEOLOGY OF EARLY KUSH

CASE BASTIONE: A PREHISTORIC SETTLEMENT IN THE EREI UPLANDS (CENTRAL SICILY)

OLD OR NEW WAVES IN CAPO GRAZIANO DECORATIVE STYLES?

Potrebbero piacerti anche