ScAnt14_Palumbi Sepolti Tra i Vivi

Scienze dell’antichitàStoria archeologia antropologia

14/1

(2007-2008)

UniverSità degli StUdi di roma «la Sapienza»

dipartimento di Scienze Storiche archeologiche e antropologiche dell’antichità

Direttore responsabilegilda Bartoloni

Direzionem. Barbanera, B.e. Barich, g. Bartoloni, g.m. Forni, g.l. gregori,

m. liverani, p. matthiae, l. michetti, l. nigro, c. panella

Segretaria di redazionei. Brancoli verger

UniverSità degli StUdi di roma «la Sapienza»

ATTI DEL CONVEGNO INTERNAZIONALE

SEPOLTI TRA I VIVIBURIED AMONG THE LIVING

EVIDENZA ED INTERPRETAZIONE DI CONTESTI fUNERARI IN ABITATO

Roma, 26-29 Aprile 2006

A cura di Gilda Bartoloni e M. Gilda Benedettini

Su www.edizioniquasar.it è possibile acquistare questa rivista anche in formato PDf.

Accedendo alla scheda dei volumi, nella sezione catalogo, si potrà consultare la lista completa dei contenuti, corredata da brevi abstract, e scegliere se acquistare l’intero volume, le sezioni o i singoli articoli.

«the landscape is never inert, people engage with it, re-work it, appropriate and contest it. it is part of the way in which identities are created and disputed, whether as individual, group or nation-state.»

B. Bender, Introduction. Landscape-Meaning and Action, oxford 1993.

the place and the ritual chosen to bury a dead person, be s/he a family member, a friend or the chief of a community are generally a meaningful and symbolic social act1. this is because dead people (either their bodies or their memories) are important for the living as much as the past is fundamental for the cultural and political construction of the present2.

at the beginning of the third millennium, after the so-called Uruk expansion, a new fu-nerary tradition (the stone-lined cists) appears first in the Upper euphrates valley and later on, crossing the taurus mountains, also in northern Syria. the adoption of a tradition originating from very distant regions (Southern caucasus or transcaucasia) and from a totally different cultural background (Kura-araks) highlights that a set of profound social and cultural changes were taking place in the Syro-anatolian communities. moreover, the construction of these fu-nerary structures for some elite intramural tombs is also the sign that they were being involved in symbolic dynamics managed and codified by new emerging groups which were challenging the former elites by undertaking a process of social re-organisation which was also accompa-nied by forms of political and cultural reorientation.

THE KURA-ARAKS CULTURE

even if the matter is still under broad discussion, it is generally accepted that the first emergence of the Kura-araks culture should be located in Southern caucasus (georgia, ar-

GiULio PALUmbi*

From collective BUrialS to SymBolS oF power.the tranSlation oF role and meaningS oF the Stone-lined ciSt

BUrial tradition From SoUthern caUcaSUS to the eUphrateS valley

* Università degli Studi di roma «la Sapienza».1 PARKER PEARSon 1999, pp. 124, 193-197; CHAP-

mAn - RAndSboRG 1981; GoLdSTEin 1981.

2 HUbERT 1994; LAyTon 1989; mCGUiRE 1992, pp. 215-218.

142 g. palumbi Sc. Ant.

menia, azerbaijan) around the middle of the fourth millennium Bc3. But while these initial and «formative» stages can be exclusively located in transcaucasia, the history of the devel-opment of this culture cannot be split up from the growing involvement of the communities of the nearby regions (eastern anatolia and iranian azerbaijan) in this same phenomenon (fig. 1).

the Kura-araks material assemblage shows since the beginning a distinctive and original set of traits, which does not share any continuity or similarities with the late-chalcolithic cul-tures from Southern caucasus.

Kura-araks pottery probably represents one of the most distinctive traits of this culture. it is a monochrome and red-black burnished production, showing an original morphological

Fig. 1. – the Kura-araks cultural area and the directions of its expansion.

3 KiGURAdzE - SAGonA 2003; PALUmbi 2003A.

14, 2007-2008 From collective burials to symbols of power 143

repertoire which is often characterised by the constant presence of knobs, lugs and handles which stress daily needs of transportation of the ceramic containers (fig. 2, a-e)4.

4 PALUmbi 2003A, pp. 103-105.

Fig. 2. – a) monochrome burnished jar with relief spiral from Keti (archaeological museum of gyumri); b) Jar from Samshvilde (tbilisi State museum); c) monochrome burnished bowl from treli (archaeological museum of tbilisi); d) red-black burnished bowl from Keti (archaeological museum of gyumri); e) Jar from didube (tbilisi

State museum).


Fig. 3. – a) wattle and daub domestic architecture from Kvatskhelebi level c1 (from dzHAvAKHiSHviLi - GLonTi 1962, pl. 19); b) Khizaant gora, level d, wattle and daub architecture (from KivKidzE 1972, pl. 5).


«light» wooden architecture, pits, isolated fireplaces and portable andirons often charac-terise the way Kura-araks communities occupied and used their settlements (fig. 3, a-b). this is also in relation to the enlarged territorial occupation (going from the plains and river-valleys to the highland pastures), which also seems to be aimed at exploiting the full potential of re-sources available in the region5. all these aspects taken together suggest that these temporary (and often discontinuous) forms of occupation can be the result of a territorial mobility which could have characterised, from the beginnings, the life-style of the Kura-araks communities6.

compared with these light and mobile forms of occupation (especially in the earliest stag-es of development of the Kura-araks culture), the funerary structures often represent more solid and permanent traces.

Kura-Araks Funerary Traditionsthe Kura-araks burial traditions can be summarised as follows7:- earthen pits (fig. 4, a)- horse-shoe shaped tombs (fig. 4, c)- Stone-lined cists (fig. 4, b)these different burial customs can be single or collective, they seem to appear all at the

same time and sometimes can be hosted in the same cemetery (like at elar or Kiketi)8. But while skeletons are generally primary burials in the single tombs, often skeletons are not com-plete and are not in anatomical connection in the collective ones. this is probably because, every time the tomb had to be re-opened, the common practice was to select the bones of the last deceased and heaped them up in the corner in order to make space for the new body (fig. 5, a-b).

even if it has not yet been proved, it seems likely that the collective tombs have hosted people belonging to the same group or who were linked together by similar ties of kinship (family tombs).

Grave Goodsthe inventory of the funerary goods is generally narrow and rather poor. apart from the

ceramic vessels (which are common and sometimes abundant), spindle-whorls, flint and bone-tools, lime-stone and semiprecious-stone necklaces usually are the average range of objects found in the Kura-araks tombs (fig. 6, a-b). valuable grave-goods such as metal objects are rare (with some rich exception like tomb 2 at Kvatskhelebi) and they are usually represented by double-spiral headed pins and hair spirals (fig. 6, c, e) (more rarely bracelets, metal pen-dants, daggers or spear-heads). the diadem from Kvatskhelebi (fig. 6, d) is an unicum9.

Tombs and Settlements apparently, there are not precise rules in the spatial relationships between tombs and

settlements. in some cases (Samshvilde and amiranis gora for instance), funerary areas are close to the nearby settlement10, but cases of isolated cemeteries (like at Kiketi, Koda and Keti)

8 KHAnzAdiAn 1979; PKHAKAdzE 1963.9 GLonTi et al. in press.10 miRTSKHULAvA 1975; CHUbiniSHviLi 1963;

KHoRidzE - PALUmbi in press.

5 KiGURAdzE 2000; KiGURAdzE - SAGonA 2003, p. 40.

6 bURnEy - LAnG 1971, pp. 56-57.7 SAGonA 2004.


Fig. 4. – a) collective earthen-pit burial from aradetis orgora (from KHoRidzE - PALUmbi in press); b) Stone-lined cist from elar (from KHAnzAdiAn 1979, fig. 42); c) collective horse-shoe shaped burial from Kiketi (courtesy of g.

pkhakadze).


Fig. 5. – a) collective stone-lined cists from Keti (from PETRoSiAn 1989, pl. 25); b) collective stone-lined cists from Samshvilde (from miRTSKHULAvA 1975, pl. 22, 32).


Fig. 6. – a) necklace (carnelian, rock-crystal, lime-stone) from the Kvatskhelebi burials (tbilisi State museum); b) Bone spindle-whorls and incised bone-tool from the Kvatskhelebi burials (tbilisi State museum); c) double-spiral headed pin from the Kvatskhelebi burials (tbilisi State museum); d) diadem from the Kvatskhelebi burials (tbilisi

State museum); e) Silver hair-spirals from the Kvatskhelebi burials (tbilisi State museum).


are also quite common11. it seems likely that in the Kura-araks culture the separation between the living and the funerary areas is rather sharp and that intramural tombs are not a common practice.

But what do the Kura-araks burial traditions want to express and what are the basic prin-ciples structuring their funerary representation?

according to the quantity and quality of the grave goods on display, Kura-araks burial customs do not emphasize any clear status differentiation, or vertical social stratification12. it is rather the opposite, especially in the case of the collective burials, where Kura-araks tombs seem to stress the centrality of the family and of horizontal social relations founded on mar-riages, alliances or group affiliation.

Focusing now on the collective stone-lined cists, that is time-enduring stone boxes host-ing in the same place bodies of people related to each other through ties of kinship, descent or membership, it has already been pointed out that they should be contemporary with the other Kura-araks burial customs. the ceramic assemblage from the stone-lined cists of the cemeter-ies of Kiketi, Koda and Samshvilde and one c14 dating from the horom cist (3350-3050 1 sigma) confirm that these structures were in use in Southern caucasus in the last quarter of the fourth millennium (if not earlier)13.

EXPAnSion oF THE KURA-ARAKS CULTURE

Starting from the end of the fourth millennium it is possible to record a clear and power-ful process of expansion of the Kura-araks culture towards eastern anatolia which is wit-nessed by the growing presence of traits of clear transcaucasian provenance in the cultural substratum of the eastern anatolian communities. this process is clearly visible in many as-pects of the material culture of the few excavated settlements of eastern anatolia (Sos höyük and Karaz in the erzurum region and Karagündüz and dilkaya in the van area) where ceramic production, building traditions, fixed and mobile house-furnishings (such as portable andirons and horse-shoe shaped zoomorphic or anthropomorphic hearts) are all clearly inspired to the Kura-araks traditions and share with them a wide range of similar traits14.

a realistic interpretation of this process should take into account the interaction between multiple factors. For sure this was the effect of the intensification of the relationships between the southern caucasian and the eastern-anatolian communities and of the absorption of the latter into the Kura-araks sphere of influence.

periodical waves of pastoralists (or small farmers) moving from Southern caucasus to the surrounding regions have often been the traditional explanation for this phenomenon15.

TURFAn 1959, pp. 389-408; KözbE 2004, pp. 39-40, figg. 5-8; ÇiLinGiRoGLU 1986, figg. 5-8.

15 SAGonA 1984, pp. 138-139, maps c-d; KUSHnAREvA 1997; RoTHmAn 2003.

11 PKHAKAdzE 1963, p. 138; PETRoSiAn 1989.12 KHoL 1992. 13 bAdALjAn et al. 1993, p. 4; bAdALjAn et al. 1994,

p. 14.14 KiGURAdzE - SAGonA 2003, pp. 45-49; KoSAy -


nevertheless reiterated arrivals of newcomers cannot alone account for the deep impact which the Kura-araks model had on the eastern anatolian populations. we are dealing with such profound changes, that it is impossible not to hypothesise a direct and positive involvement (a will of change) of the anatolian communities in their relationships with the southern cauca-sian ones. and not only did these changes affect the material forms of the daily life, but they also had profound consequences on their beliefs, their ceremonial and their ritual practices.

THE UPPER EUPHRATES vALLEy

the end of the late-Uruk phenomenon in the Upper euphrates valley was rather abrupt. the communities of the malatya and elazıg regions (now politically reorganised) were inter-acting and negotiating between an eastern area (of mountains and highlands) now part of the Kura-araks world and a southern region (of lowlands and steppes), where the «post-Uruk» transition probably was less traumatic than in the north16.

Arslantepe VIB1 and VIB2after the violent destruction of the palace in phase via (somewhere around 3100 Bc),

at the beginning of the third millennium and for approximately one century, the site of ar-slantepe became a temporary settlement (phase viB1 3100-2900 Bc) occupied by groups liv-ing in wattle and daub structures (fig. 7, a-b) and producing a hand-made monochrome and red-black pottery of clear Kura-araks influence (fig. 7, c-d)17. Faunal data from phase viB1 witness a specialised animal husbandry clearly focused on the ovicaprines (70%) and suggest that the viB1 settlers were local groups of pastoralists who, owing to their subsistence activi-ties and to their mobile life-style, were entertaining stable relationships with the Kura-araks communities from eastern anatolia and transcaucasia18.

the picture from the following phase viB2 (2900-2750 Bc) is radically different from the former. a massive mud-brick wall (which probably protected an acropolis) is surrounded by a small (and probably later) village organised into a set of residential units19. pottery and metalwork productions from phase viB2 belong to the «late-reserved Slip horizon». this is a homogenous cultural facies which, in a mature phase of the eBi, stretched from the altinova plain (elazıg) to northern Syria and linked the communities north and south of the taurus mountains in one single cultural area20.

The Arslantepe Royal Tombit is very likely that the construction of the tomb can be dated between phases viB1 and

viB2. its funerary representation witnesses the cultural complexity of this region at the begin-ning of the third millennium, highlighting the fact that local powers were not only transform-ing their structural nature, but they were also changing referents according to the needs of the new political and cultural environment.

19 FRAnGiPAnE - PALmiERi 1983, pp. 529-536, 542-560; FRAnGiPAnE 1993, pp. 80-86; FRAnGiPAnE 2001A.

20 PALmiERi 1985, p. 205.

16 PALmiERi 1985.17 FRAnGiPAnE - PALmiERi 1983.18 bARToSiEwiCz 1998; FRAnGiPAnE et al. 2005.


Fig. 7. – a) post-holes from phase viB1 at arslantepe (archivio missione archeologica italiana in anatolia orien-tale); b) wattle and daub architecture from phase viB1 at arslantepe (archivio missione archeologica italiana in anatolia orientale); c) monochrome burnished jar from arslantepe viB1 (archivio missione archeologica italiana in anatolia orientale); d) red-black burnished jar from arslantepe viB1 (archivio missione archeologica italiana

in anatolia orientale).


without going into a detailed description of the rich metal equipment of the lord buried in the tomb and of the complex and dramatic ritual which also involved the sacrifice of four young individuals, what i think it is important to stress is the strong cultural ambiguity ex-pressed by the funerary goods on display21. if on the one hand, spear-heads, plain-Simple and late-reserved Slip vessels are a direct development of the late Uruk cultural heritage (fig. 8, a, c, d), on the other hand double spiral headed pins, hair spirals, diadems and the red-black burnished vessels are clearly inspired to the contemporary Kura-araks styles and repertoires (fig. 8, b, e, f, g). additionally (and very surprisingly), the rest of the metal artefacts from the tomb (axes, chisels, gouges and metal containers) (fig. 9, a, b, c) recall the same grave goods typical of the rich funerary assemblages of the early caucasian kurgans of the majkop culture (fig. 9, d, e, f)22.

in the royal tomb of arslantepe, past is as important as present, and the old Uruk-derived traditions dialogue with the new northern and southern caucasian ones in a context which reflects the changing political climate of the period. the scene and the centre of this funerary representation is a stone-lined cist: a tradition originating from the Kura-araks culture and chosen at arslantepe as the most suitable structure for an elite intramural tomb (fig. 10, a, c).

rescue excavations carried out in the Karakaya dam brought to light two small stone-cist cemeteries (very similar to the transcaucasian ones) near the village of Suyatagı, on the left bank of the euphrates river23. an early Bronze age i dating for these cemeteries is confirmed by the retrieval of both plain-Simple and red-Black Burnished vessels in the tombs (fig. 10, b). if probably the arslantepe royal tomb is one of the earliest cases of stone-lined cists found so-far in the Upper euphrates valley, the Suyatagı cemeteries could be the sign that this funerary tradition was being progressively adopted in the malatya plain and that the arslantepe royal tomb was not an isolated case.

the arslantepe royal tomb, which is clearly a prestige and rank burial, reflects a period where the borders of the malatya plain were highly fluid, as a consequence of the political and cultural redefinition of the local polities after the fall of the late-Uruk oriented groups of power and in connection with the growing influence of the Kura-araks pole over the whole region. its location on the artificial mound means that after the destruction of the palace and the collapse of the centralised political organisation, the site did not loose its importance. this place was probably still central and meaningful in the memories and geographies of the local people. moreover, the frantic sequence of events which characterise its history at the beginning of the third millennium could be the sign that this was contented between culturally and so-cially different communities which had chosen different political referents outside the plain.

But unlike the Kura-araks tombs, where the focus is on the horizontal, group and kinship relations, the arslantepe royal tomb, with its rich display of funerary goods, foregrounded the existence of vertical social differences and of hierarchical relationships. the Kura-araks stone cist funerary tradition seems now readapted and encapsulated in the system of representation

mUnCHAEv 1975, pp. 197-255.23 dARGA 1989.

21 FRAnGiPAnE et al. 2001; HAUPTmAnn et al. 2002, pp. 43-53; PALUmbi 2004.

22 PALUmbi 2003b; CHERnyK 1992, pp. 67-83;


Fig. 8. – a) plain-Simple ware jars from the arslantepe royal tomb (t1) (archivio missione archeologica ita-liana in anatolia orientale); b) red-black burnished ware jarlet from the arslantepe royal tomb (t1) (archivio missione archeologica italiana in anatolia orientale); c) Spear-head from the arslantepe royal tomb (t1) (ar-chivio missione archeologica italiana in anatolia orientale); d) Spear-head from the arslantepe royal tomb (t1) (archivio missione archeologica italiana in anatolia orientale); e) double-spiral headed pin from the arslantepe royal tomb (S150) (archivio missione archeologica italiana in anatolia orientale); f) Silver hair-spiral from the arslantepe royal tomb (t1) (archivio missione archeologica italiana in anatolia orientale); g) diadem from the

arslantepe royal tomb (S150) (archivio missione archeologica italiana in anatolia orientale).


Fig. 9. – a) chisels and gouges from the arslantepe royal tomb (t1) (archivio missione archeologica italiana in anatolia orientale); b) axes from the arslantepe royal tomb (t1) (archivio missione archeologica italiana in anatolia orientale); c) the metal containers from the arslantepe royal tomb (t1) (archivio missione archeologi-ca italiana in anatolia orientale); d) metal tools from the cemetery of Klady-novosvobodnaia (from popova 1963: pl. 8); e) chisels and axes from the northern caucasian kurgans (from mUnCHAEv 1994, pl. 54; f) metal containers

from the northern caucasian kurgans (from mUnCHAEv 1994, pl. 56).


Fig. 10. – a) the arslantepe royal tomb with in situ materials (archivio missione archeologica italiana in anatolia orientale); b) Stone-lined cists from the cemetery at Suyatagı (from dARGA 1989, figg. 1-3); c) the arslantepe stone-

lined cist (archivio missione archeologica italiana in anatolia orientale).


of a local group of power which, burying its chief in a monumental and historical place, was in fact claiming and perhaps acquiring a legitimacy to its use and occupation24.

But the stone-lined cists did not widespread only in the malatya plain, and few decades later they became a common tradition even south of the taurus mountains.

THE EUPHRATES vALLEy SoUTH oF THE TAURUS

Carchemisat carchemis stone-lined cists (fig. 11, b) and jar-burials dated to the early Bronze age

i have been excavated very close (but probably not inside) to the local settlement25. But while jar-burials continue the local late chalcolithic and late-Uruk traditions, the stone cists, single and collective, represent a totally new phenomenon. grave goods are mainly ceramic vessels and more rarely metal artefacts, such as spear-heads, pins, chisels and axes (fig. 11, b).

Birecikmore than 300 burials were excavated in the cemetery of Birecik, most of which were

stone-lined cists hosting single or multiple burials (fig. 11, c)26. this seems to have been an iso-lated funerary area along the euphrates river with no specific connection with the settlements located in the surroundings.

grave goods are represented by ceramic pots and metal objects (although the quantity of metal items seems to be determined by the number of tombs rather than by the high concen-tration of these artefacts in one single tomb) which basically belong to the same range of ob-jects found in the arslantepe royal tomb: spear-heads, axes and gauges (there is also one small double spiral-headed pin) (fig. 11, d).

Hacinebiat hacinebi, in the eBi, different burial traditions coexist: stone-lined cists, earthen-

pits and jar-burials were found one close to the other (fig. 12, b)27. these tombs were built in the ancient mound, but their relationship with the contemporary inhabited area is not clear. what is important to stress is the fact that they could have been contemporary with a level of occupation characterised by light architecture (wooden structures) considered as the dwell-ings of groups of squatters which occupied the settlement after the abandonment of the late-chalcolithic levels (fig. 12, a)28. after the end of the late-Uruk phase the site of hacinebi (like arslantepe) changed its functions and became a temporary settlement.

Hassek Höyükat hassek höyük, a long sequence of eBi levels develops after the conflagration of the

late-Uruk buildings. close to the settlement there is a jar-burial cemetery which is contem-porary with these levels29. however, two other tombs, dated to level 0, were excavated in the

27 STEin et al. 1997.28 STEin et al. 1997, pp. 117-118.29 bEHm-bLAnCKE 1984.

24 RoTHmAn 2003, pp. 105-106.25 wooLLEy - bARnETT 1952, pp. 218-222;

LAnERi 2004, pp. 122-124. 26 SERToK - ERGEÇ 1999.


Fig. 11. – a) the Upper euphrates valley and the sites mentioned in the text; b) carchemis, stone-lined cist (from wooLLEy - bARnETT 1952, fig. 85); c) Stone-lined cists from the Birecik cemetery (from SERToK - ERGEÇ 1999, fig. 6);

d) metal grave-goods from the Birecik cemetery (from SERToK - ERGEÇ 1999, figg. 9-10).


Fig. 12. – a) post-hole architecture from the eBi levels at hacinebi (from STEin et al. 1997, fig. 11); b) Stone-lined cists at hacinebi (from STEin et al. 1997, fig. 8); c) grab 12 at hassek höyük (from bEHm-bLAnCKE 1984, fig. 7); d)

the metal grave-goods from grab 12 at hassek höyük (from bEHm-bLAnCKE 1984, fig. 8).


settlement: grab 12a and grab 12, both dated to level 0. level 0 should represent the latest moments of the life of hassek, that is the end of the eBi, after which the site was definitely abandoned. in both cases their funerary inventory is much richer than in the burials from the external cemetery. grab 12a (or Sammelfund), which was heavily destroyed by later distur-bances, contained ceramic vessels and metal objects: one pin, one axe, a chisel and one dagger30. grab 12, which was built with stone blocks, hosted the body of a man in contracted position (fig. 12, c). grave goods consist of a number of ceramic vessels and 8 metal objects (two spear-heads, two axes and a dagger, a chisel a pin and a mace-head) which are very similar to the same set of artefacts found in the arslantepe royal tomb (as in the case of grab 12a) and seem to belong to a man who (like the arslantepe lord) must have played a prominent role (fig. 12, d)31. once again, like at arslantepe and hacinebi, the construction of stone-lined tombs in the settlement coincides with temporary and non stable forms of occupation of the site.

URUK And PASToRALiSm

it is generally agreed that the impact of the late-Uruk phenomenon over the major centres of the periphery encouraged a further leap towards the social complexity in those «peripheral» centres which were already in a stage of internal structural growth32. these structural changes also involved aspects related to the organisation of the primary and the secondary production. the shift towards the specialised animal husbandry, which is recorded on the euphrates valley (arslantepe, Kurban höyük, hacinebi) in the second half of the fourth millennium, was prob-ably a consequence of these structural transformations, which could have been encouraged by the growing demand for secondary products, the emerging role played by the specialised sec-tors of textile production and wool trade33.

the end of the late-Uruk phenomenon probably had a profound impact over those cen-tres which, more than others, had been involved in these interregional relationships of long-dis-tance trade, triggering off a phase of political transition. South of the taurus mountains, where this transition between the late-Uruk and the «post-Uruk» times was probably smoother and without dramatic cultural breaks, the new eBi settlement pattern records a growth in the num-ber of sites and a general decrease of their dimensions34. the population of the Syro-anatolian euphrates valley seems to have been more dispersed in a territory inhabited by small villages which were probably interacting on a low level of regional economic integration. But despite these changes, faunal data of the first half of the third millennium show that these communi-ties continued the same specialised pastoral strategies of the iv millennium, which could have required a more dispersed occupation of the territory for its more suitable exploitation35.

30 bEHm-bLAnCKE 1981.31 bEHm-bLAnCKE 1984, pp. 50-53.32 ALGAzE 2001; SCHwARTz 2001; STEin 2001;

FRAnGiPAnE 2001b.33 FRAnGiPAnE 2001b, p. 330; zEdER 1988; FRAn-

GiPAnE - SiRACUSAno 1998; GREEn 1980; mCCoRRiSTon 1997.

34 LUPTon 1996, pp. 84-85; wiLKinSon 1990, pp. 94-97.

35 FRAnGiPAnE - SiRACUSAno 1998, p. 241.


THE PRoCESS

i think it is hard to believe that the stone-lined cists from the Upper and middle euphra-tes valley were built to host foreigners on the move or people originating from the caucasus. Firstly because the ceramic inventories from the tombs are exactly the same as those in use in the contemporary settlements and secondly because the widespread diffusion of this tradition also in the eBa ii (titris and lidar höyük for instance) suggests a local and long-term adop-tion of this funerary custom36. But which relationships occurred between the political, territo-rial and economic changes taking place in the middle and in the Upper euphrates valley after the end of the late-Uruk phenomenon and the adoption in these same regions of a new burial tradition which (in its beginnings) probably had foreign connotations and was extraneous to the local ones?

it has already been suggested that in the Kura-araks communities the collective stone-cists could have expressed a sense of affiliation, consanguineity and group identity, represent-ing some of the basic principles structuring the organisation of societies, which (as in the case of the Kura-araks communities) were characterised by a marked territorial mobility. it might be in connection with these principles that the (eBi) stone-lined cists of the euphrates valley were built in order to host collective burials (see Birecik): that is places where individual iden-tity disappears and merges into group membership. their appearance could probably be the symptom of the new (political) centrality acquired by the family organisation and the expres-sion of restored relationships between family, descent and land.

the appeal that the Kura-araks socio-cultural model exerted on the specialised pastoral groups of the malatya plain is well attested in phase viB1 at arslantepe and the same can be said for the almost contemporary «royal tomb». But in the euphrates valley, south of the tau-rus mountains, the relationships between the local communities and the caucasian ones were not direct, but probably mediated through and by the communities of the Upper euphrates (malatya and elazıg). however, despite this mediation, something originating far-away from the euphrates valley, was progressively leaking south of the taurus mountains.

after the disappearance of the centralised and redistributive political organisations linked to the Uruk system, the local communities could have undertaken a process of socio-economic reorganisation. a shift towards a pastoral economy, the consequent growing mobility and the need to affirm and express new identities and legitimise new forms of power (maybe compet-ing with the earlier ones) could have encouraged the adoption of different socio-cultural mod-els and maybe those connected and originating from the caucasian region could have been the most appropriate to the present historical context.

what is also interesting to observe is that the adoption of the stone-lined cists in the Syro-anatolian euphrates valley was simultaneous with the appearance of grave goods, extraneous to the traditional burial customs. weapons (spear-heads, daggers or knives), Kura-araks-like body ornaments (double spiral headed pins and hair-spirals) and specialised working tools (axes, chisels and gauges) are now part of new forms of representation of emerging groups who want

36 ALGAzE et al. 1995; HonÇA - ALGAzE 1998; HAUPTmAnn 1993; CARTER - PARKER 1995, p. 113, tab. 14.3.


to emphasise a more profane connotation of their powers. courage and strength (warfare), in-termediation ability (trade of raw materials and metal artefacts) and technical skills (wood carv-ing, wood clearing or timber working, as if the leader role was symbolically intertwined with the figure of the carpenter) seem to be the qualities which distinguish the new chiefs in opposition to the older and more traditional powers which, in accordance to the southern mesopotamian in-fluences, could have emphasised more religious, administrative and maybe even peaceful traits.

A «ToUCH» oF PHEnomEnoLoGy

it has been observed that during the transition between the end of the iv and the begin-ning of the iii millennium, there is a connection between changes in the use and function of some settlements and the construction of intramural stone-lined cists which, at arslantepe and hassek höyük, hosted elite or rank burials. these transformations could be related to the gradual emergence, in the Upper and middle euphrates valley, of groups which were increas-ingly specialised in pastoral activities and leading a mobile life-style. changes in settlement functions could be related to the new subsistence strategies which also produced a new con-ception of both the territory and the landscape.

in this historical contingency, building an elite tomb within or on the top of a settlement could have been a polysemic act, seen as a territorial marker to claim rights over the place and the surrounding grazing lands, but also a way to build an ancestral place in order to find symbolic and physical connections with the past and legitimise or naturalise present power positions37.

let’s try to imagine how settlements like arslantepe, hacinebi and hassek, after the aban-donment or destruction of the previous levels of occupation, looked like. how were they per-ceived by the new occupants and why were these tombs built on them? maybe they were sim-ply considered as ruins belonging to a distant past which did not have any connection with the present. But maybe they could have been perceived as ancient and meaningful places, mounds of history and memories, whose past was an important heritage for the present, and because of this the right place to bury the leader of a community or the member of a powerful group.

the complex symbolic connection linking tumuli and elite tombs reminds very closely of the same structuring principles which will characterise the later monumental tombs in Jerablus tahtani and in tell Banat38.

But these same symbolic codes are also characteristic of the northern caucasian kurgans, some of which (the early-majkop ones) date back to the end of the iv and the beginning of the iii millennium Bc39. Kurgans – that is funerary tumuli – containing the remains of the ances-tors proved to materialise kinship, strengthen the relationships between descent and territory and shape the group identity, by helping to build collective memory40.

bURG et al. 1996.39 REzEPKin 2000, pp. 11-22; LyonnET 2000.40 SAGonA 2004, pp. 498-499; KoRyAKovA 2000;

CHAPmAn 1997.

37 REnFREw 1973, pp. 539-558; bRAdLEy 1984, pp. 15-25; PARKER PEARSon 1999, pp. 158-164; KRiSTiAnSEn 1984, pp. 72-100.

38 PoRTER 2002; PELTEnbURG et al. 1995; PELTEn-


going back to the early iii millennium stone-lined cists in the euphrates valley, the deci-sion to build the tomb of a chief on an artificial mound (which was in reality an already-made tumulus)41, that is a prominent and important place which dominated the surrounding land-scape, could have been the result of the local adaptation of cosmological conceptions and new ideologies of power derived from the caucasian world. the similarities observed between the metal artefacts composing the funerary inventories of the caucasian kurgans and those from the euphrates stone-lined cists (axes, chisels, gauges and, in the case of the arslantepe tomb, also metal containers) strengthen these analogies.

the adoption of traits proposing an alternative social model (the Kura-araks one) which was founded on horizontal social relationships and focused on the land, could have been a reaction to the mesopotamian model focused on the city and founded on bureaucracy, admin-istration and centralised economy. it is possible that after the collapse of the Uruk system the old and now weak political elites were being challenged by new forms of competing leadership identifying themselves with different symbols of power and proposing an alternative model of social and territorial organisation.

SomE ConCLUSionS

changes in resources exploitation, land use and settlement functions in northern Syria and south-eastern anatolia at the beginning of the third millennium could have led to the use of such intramural stone-cists. paradoxically, the act of building an elite stone-cist in an aban-doned or a temporarily occupied mound could have been a metaphoric process of translation of meanings which transformed the settlement in a monumental ancestral tomb42.

the newly acquired centrality of these funerary structures and of their rituals in the social and political life of the Upper and middle euphrates communities could have been a new con-text where to channel competition, affirm and legitimise new forms of power and naturalise use and acquisition of the land.

the introduction in the middle and Upper euphrates of new funerary traditions (the stone-lined cists) from the Kura-araks world and of new power ideologies from northern caucasus if on the one hand witnesses the powerful impact of the caucasian cultures over the surrounding regions, on the other hand proves that profound changes were occurring in the social and political organisation of the Syro-anatolian communities. By stressing the new cen-trality of the family and of the horizontal social relationships, these tombs foregrounded the emergence of kin-groups which, by means of new territorial strategies and the manipulation of a new funerary ideology, were acquiring and legitimising stronger power positions established on land appropriation, control on flows of raw materials and maybe also on a paramount role in the exchange and circulation of prestige goods.

42 bRAdLEy 1998, p. 150.41 For a similar case in Sos höyük see SAGonA 2004, pp. 480-481.


references

ALGAzE 2001: g. ALGAzE, The Prehistory of Imperialism: The Case of Uruk Period Meso-potamia, in m. RoTHmAn (ed.), Uruk Mesopotamia & Its Neighbors, Santa Fe 2001, pp. 27-84.

ALGAzE et al. 1995: G. ALGAzE – P. GoLdbERG - d. HonÇA - T. mATnEy - A. miSiR - A. miLLER RoSEn - d. SCHLEE - L. SomERS, Titris Höyük, a Small EBA Urban Centre in SE Ana-tolia. The 1994 Season, in Anatolica 21, 1995, pp. 13-64.

bAdALjAn et al. 1993: r. bAdALjAn - C. EdEnS - R. GoRny - P. KoHL - d. STRonACH - A. ToniKjAn - S. HAmAyAKjAn - S. mAndRiKjAn - m. zARdARiAn, Preliminary Report on the 1992 Excavations at Horom, Armenia, in Iran 31, 1993, pp. 1-24.

bAdALjAn et al. 1994: R. bAdALjAn - P. KoHL - d. STRonACH - A. ToniKjAn, Preliminary Report on the 1993 Excavations at Horom, Armenia, in Iran 32, 1994, pp. 1-30.

bARToSiEwiCz 1998: l. bARToSiEwiCz, Interim Report on the Bronze Age Animal Bones from Arslantepe (Malatya, Anatolia), in H. bUiTEnHUiS - L. bARToSiEwiCz - A.m. CHoyKE (eds.), Archaeozoology of the Near East iii, groningen 1998, pp. 221-232.

bEHm-bLAnCKE 1981: m. bEHm-bLAnCKE, Hassek Höyük, in IstMitt 31, 1981, pp. 5-196.bEHm-bLAnCKE 1984: m. bEHm-bLAnCKE, Hassek Höyük, in IstMitt 34, 1984, pp. 31-150bEndER 1993: B. bEndER, Introduction. Landscape-Meaning and Action, in B. bEndER (ed.),

Landscape: Politics and Perspectives, oxford 1993, pp. 1-17.bRAdLEy 1984: r. bRAdLEy, The Social Foundations of Prehistoric Britain, london 1984.bRAdLEy 1998: r. bRAdLEy, The Significance of Monuments, london 1998.bURnEy - LAnG 1971: C. bURnEy - d. LAnG, The Peoples of the Hills, london 1971.CARTER - PARKER 1995: E. CARTER - A. PARKER, Pots, People and The Archaeology of Death

in Northern Syria and Southern Anatolia in the Latter Half of the Third Millennium BC, in S. CAmPbELL - A. GREEn (eds.), The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East, oxford 1995, pp. 96-115.

CHAPmAn 1997: J. CHAPmAn, Places as Timemarks - the Social Construction of Prehistor-ic Landscapes in Eastern Hungary, in g. nASH (ed.), Semiotics of Landscape: Archaeology of Mind (BAR, Int. Ser. 661), oxford 1997, pp. 31-45.

CHAPmAn - RAndSboRG 1981: R. CHAPmAn - K. RAndSboRG, Approaches to the Archaeology of Death, in R. CHAPmAn - i. KinnES - K. RAndSboRG (eds.), The Archaeology of Death, cam-bridge 1981, pp. 1-24.

CHERnyK 1992: e. CHERnyK, Ancient Metallurgy in the USSR, cambridge 1992. CHUbiniSHviLi 1963: t. CHUbiniSHviLi, Amiranis Gora, tbilisi 1963.ÇiLinGiRoGLU 1986: a. ÇiLinGiRoGLU , Van-Dilkaya Höyügü Kazıları, 1985, in VIII Kazı

Sonuçları Toplantısı, ankara 1986, pp. 81-94.dARGA 1989: m. dARGA, Les Tombes de Suyatagı-Mamaras à la Région de Karakaya, in

K. EmRE - m. mELLinK - b. HRoUdA - n. özGüÇ (eds.), Anatolia and the Ancient Near East, ankara 1989, pp. 67-74.

dzHAvAKHiSHviLi - GLonTi 1962: A. dzHAvAKHiSHviLi - L. GLonTi, Urbnisi I: Arkheologi kheskie Raskopi, Provedennye v 1954-1961 gg. na Selishkhe Kvatskelebi, tbilisi 1962.


FRAnGiPAnE 1993: m. FRAnGiPAnE, Arslantepe-Melid-Malatya, in Arslantepe, Hierapolis, Iasos, Kyme. Scavi Archeologici Italiani in Turchia, venezia 1993, pp. 31-103.

FRAnGiPAnE 2001A: m. FRAnGiPAnE, The Transition between Two Opposing Forms of Power at Arslantepe (Malatya) at the Beginning of the 3rd Millennium, in TüBA-Ar 4, 2001, pp. 1-24.

FRAnGiPAnE 2001b: m. FRAnGiPAnE, Centralization Processes in Greater Mesopotamia. Uruk «Expansion» as the Climax of Systemic Interactions among Areas of the Greater Meso-potamian Region, in m. RoTHmAn (ed.), Uruk Mesopotamia & Its Neighbors, Santa Fe 2001, pp. 307-348.

FRAnGiPAnE et al. 2001: m. FRAnGiPAnE - G.m. di noCERA - A. HAUPTmAnn - P. moR-bidELLi - A. PALmiERi - L. SAdoRi - m. SCHULTz - T. SCHmidT-SCHULTz, The Finding of a «Royal» Tomb from 3.000 B.C. as a Marker of Radical Changes in the Political Structures at Arslantepe, in Paléorient 27/2, 2001, pp. 105-139.

FRAnGiPAnE et al. 2005: m. FRAnGiPAnE - G.m. di noCERA - G. PALUmbi, L’Interazione tra Due Universi Socioculturali nella Piana di Malatya (Turchia) tra IV e III Millennio: Dati Archeologici e Riconoscimento di Identità, in Origini 27, 2005, pp. 123-170.

FRAnGiPAnE - PALmiERi 1983: m. FRAnGiPAnE - A. PALmiERi, Cultural Developments at Ar-slantepe at the Beginning of Third Millennium, in m. FRAnGiPAnE - A. PALmiERi (eds.), Perspec-tives on Protourbanization in Eastern Anatolia: Arslantepe (Malatya). An Interim Report on 1975-1983 Campaigns, in Origini 12/2, 1983, pp. 523-574.

FRAnGiPAnE - SiRACUSAno 1998: m. FRAnGiPAnE - G. SiRACUSAno, Changes in Subsistence Strategies in East Anatolia during the 4th and 3rd Millennium B.C, in l. bARToSiEwiCz - E. jEREm - w. mEid (eds.), Man and the Animal World. Studies in Archaeozoology, Archaeology, Anthro-pology and Palaeolinguistics in Memoriam Sandor Bököny, Budapest 1998, pp. 237-246.

GLonTi et al. in press: L. GLonTi - m. KHETSKHovELi - G. PALUmbi, The Cemetery at Kvatskhelebi, in A. SAGonA - m. AbRAmiSHviLi (eds.), Archaeology in Southern Caucasus: Per-spectives from Georgia, in press.

GoLdSTEin 1981: l. GoLdSTEin, One-Dimensional Archaeology and Multi-Dimensional People: Spatial Organisation and Mortuary Analysis, in R. CHAPmAn - i. KinnES - K. RAndSboRG (eds.), The Archaeology of Death, cambridge 1981, pp. 53-69.

GREEn 1980: m. GREEn, Animal Husbandry at Uruk in the Archaic Period, in JNES 39, 1980, pp. 1-35.

HAUPTmAnn 1993: h. HAUPTmAnn, Vier Jahrtausende Siedlungsgeschichte am Mittleren Euphrat, in ADeutschl 1, 1993, pp. 10-15.

HAUPTmAnn et al. 2002: A. HAUPTmAnn - S. SCHmiTT-STRECKER - F. bEGEmAnn - A. PALmiERi, Chemical Composition and Lead Isotopy of Metal Objects from the «Royal» Tomb and Other Related Finds at Arslantepe, Eastern Anatolia, in Paléorient 28/2, 2002, pp. 43-69.

HonÇA - ALGAzE 1998: d. HonÇA - G. ALGAzE, Preliminary Report on the Human Skeletal Remains at Titris Höyük: 1991-1996 Seasons, in Anatolica 24, 1998, pp. 101-141.

HUbERT 1994: J. HUbERT, Sacred Beliefs and Beliefs of Sacredness, in d. CARmiCHAEL - j. HUbERT - b. REEvES - A. SCHAnCHE (eds.), Sacred Sites, Sacred Places (One World Archaeology Series 23), london 1994.

KHAnzAdiAn 1979: e. KHAnzAdiAn, Elar-Darani, erevan 1979.


KHoL 1992: p. KHoL, The Transcaucasian «Periphery» in the Bronze Age, in e. SCHoRTmAn - P. URbAn (eds.), Resources, Power and Interregional Interaction, new york 1992, pp. 117-137.

KHoRidzE - PALUmbi in press: i. KHoRidzE - G. PALUmbi, The Cemetery of Aradetis Orgora, in A. SAGonA - m. AbRAmiSHviLi (eds.), Archaeology in Southern Caucasus: Perspectives from Georgia, in press.

KiGURAdzE 2000: T. KiGURAdzE, The Chalcolithic-Early Bronze Age Transition in the East-ern Caucasus, in C. mARRo - H. HAUPTmAnn (eds.), Chronologies des Pays du Caucase et de l’Euphrate aux IVe-IIIe Millénaires, paris 2000, pp. 321-328.

KiGURAdzE - SAGonA 2003: t. KiGURAdzE - A. SAGonA, On the Origins of the Kura-Araks Cultural Complex, in A. SmiTH - K. RUbinSon (eds.), Archaeology in the Borderlands: Investi-gations in Caucasia and Beyond, los angeles 2003, pp. 38-94.

KivKidzE 1972: i. KivKidzE, Poselelenie Epoki Rannei Bronzi Khizanaant Gora, tbilisi 1972.

KoRyAKovA 2000: l. KoRyAKovA, Some Notes about the Material Culture of Eurasian No-mads, in j. dAviS-KimbALL - E. mURPHy - L. KoRyAKovA - L. yAbLonSKy (eds.), Kurgans, Ritual Sites, and Settlements. Eurasian Bronze and Iron Age (BAR, Int. Ser. 890), oxford 2000, pp. 13-18.

KosAy - TURFAn 1959: H. KosAy - K. TURFAn, Erzurum-Karaz Kazısı Raporu, in Belleten 23, 1959, pp. 349-413.

KözbE 2004: g. KözbE, Activity Areas and Social Organization within Early-Transcau-casian Houses at Karagündüz Höyük, Van, in A. SAGonA (ed.), A View from the Highlands. Archaeological Studies in Honour of Charles Burney, herent 2004, pp. 35-54.

KRiSTiAnSEn 1984: K. KRiSTiAnSEn, Ideology and Material Culture: an Archeological Perspec-tive, in m. SPRiGGS (ed.), Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology, cambridge 1984, pp. 72-100.

KUSHnAREvA 1997: K. KUSHnAREvA, The Southern Caucasus in Prehistory, philadelphia 1997.

LAnERi 2004: n. LAnERi, I Costumi funerari della Media Vallata dell’Eufrate durante il III Millennio (Dissertationes 4), napoli 2004.

LAyTon 1989: r. LAyTon, Introduction: Who Needs the Past?, in r. LAyTon (ed.), Who Needs the Past? (One World Archaeology Series 5), london 1989, pp. 1-20.

LUPTon 1996: a. LUPTon, Stability and Change. Socio-Political Development in North Mesopotamia and South-East Anatolia 4000 – 2700 B.C. (BAR, Int. Ser. 627), oxford 1996.

LyonnET 2000: B. LyonnET, La Mesopotamie et le Caucase du Nord au IVe et au Debut du IIIe Millénaires av. N.E.: Chronologies de la Culture de Majkop. Etat de la Question et Nou-velles Propositions, in C. mARRo - H. HAUPTmAnn (éds.), Chronologies des Pays du Caucase et de l’Euphrate aux IVe-IIIe Millénaires, paris 2000, pp. 299-320.

mARRo - HAUPTmAnn 2000: c. mARRo - H. HAUPTmAnn (éds.), Chronologies des Pays du Caucase et de l’Euphrate aux IVe-IIIe Millénaires, paris 2000.

mCCoRRiSTon 1997: J. mCCoRRiSTon, The Fiber Revolution: Textile Extensification, Al-ienation and Social Stratification in Ancient Mesopotamia, in Current Anthropology 38/4, 1997, pp. 517-549.

mCGUiRE 1992: r. mCGUiRE, A Marxist Archaeology, San diego 1992.


miRTSKHULAvA 1975: g. miRTSKHULAvA, Samshvilde. Resultati Raskopok (1968-1970 gg), tbilisi 1975.

mUnCHAEv 1975: r. mUnCHAEv, Kavkaz na Zare Bronzogo Veka, moskva 1975.mUnCHAEv 1994: r. mUnCHAEv, Maikopskaya Kul’tura, in K. KUSHnAREvA - v. mARKovin,

Arkheologia. Epokha Bronzy Kavkaza i Srednei Azii, moskva 1994, pp. 158-253.PALmiERi 1985: a. PALmiERi, Eastern Anatolia and Early Mesopotamia Urbanization: Re-

marks on Changing Relations, in m. LivERAni - A. PALmiERi - R. PERoni (a cura di), Studi di Paletnologia in Onore di S.M. Puglisi, roma 1985, pp. 191-213.

PALUmbi 2003A: g. PALUmbi, Red-Black Pottery: Eastern Anatolian and Transcaucasian Relationships around the Mid-Fourth Millenium BC, in Ancient Near Eastern Studies 40, 2003, pp. 80-134.

PALUmbi 2003b: g. PALUmbi, Rosso e Nero. Ruolo e Significato della Cultura Kuro-Araks nelle Trasformazioni delle Comunità dell’Anatolia Orientale tra IV e III Millennio a.C., Un-published phd dissertation, roma 2003.

PALUmbi 2004: g. PALUmbi, La più antica Tomba «Reale». Dati archeologici e Ricostruzione delle Ipotesi, in m. FRAnGiPAnE (a cura di), Alle Origini del Potere. Arslantepe, la Collina dei Leoni, catalogo della mostra (roma 2004), milano 2004, pp. 115-119.

PARKER PEARSon 1999: m. PARKER PEARSon, The Archaeology of Death and Burial, phoenix mill 1999.

PELTEnbURG et al. 1995: e. PELTEnbURG - S. CAmPbELL - P. CRoFT - d. LUnT - m.A. mURRAy - m.E. wATT, Jerablus-Tahtani, Syria, 1992-4: Preliminary Report, in Levant 27, 1995, pp. 1-75.

PELTEnbURG et al. 1996: E. PELTEnbURG - d. boLGER - S. CAmPbELL - m.A. mURRAy - R. TiP-PinG, Jerablus Tahtani, Syria, 1995: Preliminary Report, in Levant 28, 1996, pp. 1-25.

PETRoSiAn 1989: l. PETRoSiAn, Raskopki Pamjatnikov Keti I Voskeaska, erevan 1989.PKHAKAdzE 1963: g. PKHAKAdzE, Eneolit Kvemo Kartli, tbilisi 1963.PoPovA 1963: t. PoPovA, Dolmeny Stantsy Novosvobodnoi, moskva 1963. PoRTER 2002: a. PoRTER, The Dynamics of Death: Ancestors, Pastoralism and the Origins

of a Third-Millennium City in Syria, in BASOR 325, 2002, pp. 1-36.REnFREw 1973: c. REnFREw, Monuments, Mobilization and Social Organisation in Neo-

lithic Wessex, in c. REnFREw (ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory, london 1973, pp. 539-558.

REzEPKin 2000: a. REzEPKin, Das Frühbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Klady und die Maj-kop-Kultur in Nordwestkaukasien (Archäologie in Eurasien, Band 10), rahden 2000.

RoTHmAn 2003: m. RoTHmAn, Ripples in the Stream: Transcaucasian-Anatolian Interac-tion in the Murat/Euphrates Basin at the Beginning of the Third Millennium BC, in A. SmiTH - K. RUbinSon (eds.), Archaeology in the Borderlands. Investigations in Caucasia and Beyond, los angeles 2003, pp. 95-110.

SAGonA 1984: a. SAGonA, The Transcaucasian Region in the Early Bronze Age (BAR, Int. Ser. 214), oxford 1984.

SAGonA 2004: a. SAGonA, Social Boundaries and Ritual Landscapes in Late Prehistoric Trans-Caucasus and Highland Anatolia, in a. SAGonA (ed.), A View from the Highlands.


Archaeological Studies in Honour of Charles Burney (AncNearEastSt, Suppl. 12), herent 2004, pp. 475-538.

SCHwARTz 2001: g. SCHwARTz, Syria and the Uruk Expansion, in m. RoTHmAn (ed.), Uruk Mesopotamia & Its Neighbors, Santa Fe 2001, pp. 233-264.

SERToK - ERGEÇ 1999: K. SERToK - R. ERGEÇ, A New Early Bronze Age Cemetery: Excava-tions Near the Birecik Dam, Southeastern Turkey, in Anatolica 25, 1999, pp. 87-107.

STEin 2001: g. STEin, Indigenous Social Complexity at Hacinebi (Turkey) and the Organi-zation of Uruk Colonial Contact, in m. RoTHmAn (ed.), Uruk Mesopotamia & Its Neighbors, Santa Fe 2001, pp. 265-305.

STEin et al. 1997: G. STEin - K. bodEn - C. EdEnS - j.P. EdEnS - K. KEiTH - A. mCmAHon - H. özbAL, Excavations at Hacınebi, Turkey-1996: Preliminary Report, in Anatolica 23, 1997, pp. 111-171.

wiLKinSon 1990: t. wiLKinSon, Town and Country in Southeastern Anatolia. Vol. I. Settle-ment and Land Use at Kurban Höyük and Other Sites in the Lower Karababa Basin (OIP 109), chicago 1990.

wooLLEy - bARnETT 1952: L. wooLLEy - R. bARnETT, Carchemish, Part III. The Excava-tions in the Inner Town and the Hittite Inscriptions, london 1952.

zEdER 1988: m. zEdER, Understanding Urban Processes through the Study of Specialised Sub-sistence Economy in the Near East, in Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 7, 1988, pp. 1-55.

RiASSUnTo

la tradizione funeraria delle tombe a cista ha origine in transcaucasia (georgia, armenia, azerbaigian) nella seconda metà del iv millennio in un contesto socio-culturale caratterizzato da una marcata origi-nalità (la cultura Kura-araks) e da una organizzazione sociale fondamentalmente egualitaria e fondata sulla centralità della struttura famigliare. all’inizio del iii millennio questo costume funerario viene adottato in luoghi geograficamente molto distanti (alta valle dell’eufrate e Siria settentrionale) ed in ambiti socio culturali diversi ed estranei da quelli di origine. È il semplice risultato dell’impatto tras-formativo connesso all’espansione fisica e culturale delle comunità sud-caucasiche nelle regioni limitro-fe? in questo lavoro si suggerisce che un ruolo fondamentale, in questo processo di adozione, fu giocato dal mutato panorama politico e culturale dell’anatolia sud-orientale dopo l’espansione tardo-Uruk, dalle trasformazioni strutturali delle comunità dell’alta valle dell’eufrate all’inizio del iii millennio ed infine dalle esigenze di legittimare nuove forme di potere mediante la costruzione di identità nuove ed alternative a quelle tradizionali.

ScAnt14_Palumbi Sepolti Tra i Vivi

Documents

Transcript of ScAnt14_Palumbi Sepolti Tra i Vivi