Distribution of artifacts and ecofacts in an Early Bronze Age house in Eastern Anatolia: Space use and household economy at Arslantepe VI B2 (2900–2750 BCE)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.08.035Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Spatial and stratigraphic patterning of materials in an EBA I house at Arslantepe, TK

  • Zoological (NISP, age patterns, anatomical distributions) and botanical analyses

  • Outcomes are combined with morpho-functional study of artifacts (including lithic use-wear).

  • Functional definition of different parts of the house and detection of taphonomic biases

  • Results (combined with preliminary data on other houses) suggest a major role of household economy in this phase.

Abstract

Arslantepe, one of the best documented mounds in Eastern Anatolia, is well known especially for its Late Chalcolithic ‘palace’, testifying to the emergence of a centralized and redistributive economy, typical in the 4th millennium BCE Uruk and Uruk-related worlds. At the beginning of the Early Bronze Age this socio-economic system undergoes a collapse, and the degree of control of the economy on behalf of the ‘elites’ seems to be, here and in other sites, significantly lower or even non-existent. This topic (in need of further investigation) may be enriched by studies focusing on the household level and aimed at assessing the role of household economy. By applying a multidisciplinary approach, this research combines zoological, botanical and artifactual evidence from a multi-roomed mud-brick dwelling in the Early Bronze Age settlement of Arslantepe — VI B2 (2900–2750 BCE), which was destroyed by a fire and suddenly abandoned: an event entailing the retrieval of a very rich assemblage of in situ ecofacts and artifacts. In this paper we present in detail the carpological, anthracological and archaeozoological finds and – after describing the architectural layout of the house under examination – we assess the morpho-functional characteristics of both ceramics and lithics (the latter determined through use-wear analysis) and examine the spatial and stratigraphic patterning of all the materials: although partly biased by taphonomic modifications, the sub-assemblages of the different indoor and outdoor spaces of the examined dwelling reflect the functional characteristics of each area. Additionally, we combine our results with preliminary data from other parts of the extensively excavated village of period VI B2, pointing out the prominent role of household economy in this phase.

Introduction

Biological records associated with archeological evidence can be advantageously used to reconstruct the socio-economic characteristics of past societies and their interaction with the environment. Multidisciplinary approaches are widespread in studies concerning the earlier phases of prehistory and are now becoming more common also for later periods, but they often face the difficulty of tackling a full set of diverse data (i.e., material culture, plant, animal and environmental evidence) that need to be analyzed by well-balanced teams of specialists. When carried out, multidisciplinary cooperation leads to significant results and has proven to be decisive in clarifying dubious interpretations of past human–environment interrelations (Cremaschi et al., 2014, Di Lernia et al., 2013, Masi et al., 2014, Mazzini et al., 2011, Pepe et al., 2013, Sabato et al., 2014). In this article we analyze all the human traces (artifacts and ecofacts) recovered in a domestic structure of the Early Bronze Age (EBA) I period at the site of Arslantepe (Turkey): through this case study we aim at outlining a methodology for the interpretation of archeological contexts based on a fine-grained analysis of the spatial distribution of varied finds; additionally, we intend to contribute to the field of household archeology – which has recently undergone a considerable development also in Near Eastern studies (i.e., Foster, 2012, Nishimura, 2008, Özbal, 2006, Parker and Foster, 2012) – by focusing on the domestic modes of production and consumption in an early EBA residence.

Arslantepe (38°22′55″ lat. N, 38°21′40″ long. E, 941 m a.s.l.) is an artificial mound 30 m high and 3.7 ha in size located about 10 km south of the west bank of the Euphrates River in the Malatya Plain, 5 km northeast of the modern town of Malatya (Fig. 1). Fifty years of excavation at the site has brought to light an almost uninterrupted sequence spanning from the late V millennium BCE (Late Chalcolithic, LC 1–2) to the Hittite, Roman and Medieval periods. Most of the main levels of occupation have been extensively investigated.

Despite its location in a semi-arid region with a continental climate, the Malatya Plain features several water-courses and springs creating optimal conditions for arboreal coverage and dry farming agriculture. Hydrogeological and geomorphological investigations have shown that these favorable conditions must have existed since prehistoric times (Marcolongo and Palmieri, 1983). Stable carbon isotope analyses of plant remains have also been recently carried out at the site, and besides providing useful data on palaeoclimatic changes and agricultural management in several periods of its life (Arıkan et al., 2015, Baneschi et al., 2012, Masi et al., 2013a, Masi et al., 2013b, Masi et al., 2014), they have also suggested that in the late 4th and 3rd millennium BCE the climate was more humid than it is today. In biogeographical terms, the Malatya Plain is located in the Irano-Turanian floristic region, in critical proximity to the meeting point between three different phytogeographical regions (Kaya and Raynal, 2001). Woody species mainly consist of deciduous and evergreen broadleaved plants (oaks and rosaceans) and of hygrophilous taxa (poplars and willows) that can be found near tectonic depressions and along channels, natural springs and cultivated areas.

Arslantepe was the most important settlement in this fertile plain throughout its occupation and is especially well-known for its 4th millennium BCE sequence: during the Late Chalcolithic the site witnessed the emergence of one of the earliest proto-states in Anatolia and in the late 4th millennium BCE (period VI A, 3400–3000 BCE) it was the center of a large monumental ‘palace’ where a wide range of cultic, centralizing and redistributive activities took place (Frangipane and Palmieri, 1983a, Frangipane, 1997, Frangipane, 2001, Frangipane, 2012). The destruction of this complex at the beginning of the 3rd millennium BCE was followed by a short phase (Arslantepe VI B1, 3000–2900 BC) in which the site was characterized by a rather generalized change, which is particularly evident in its material culture (i.e., pottery production), testifying to stronger links with the pastoral communities from the circum-Caucasus regions (Alvaro and Palumbi, 2014, Frangipane, 2001, Frangipane, 2012, Frangipane and Palmieri, 1983b, Frangipane et al., 2005, Frangipane and Palumbi, 2007, Palumbi, 2008, Palumbi, 2012).

Arslantepe period VI B2 (2900–2750 BCE), which followed this phase and will be examined in this article, is conversely characterized in either ceramic production or architectural features (mud-brick architecture and types of hearths) by a renewed stronger continuity with the Late Chalcolithic traditions. Nevertheless, in this phase several elements suggest a socio-economic change, in particular the lack of indicators of a centralized and redistributive economy such as temples, seals, sealings and mass produced bowls. Because it fits a more general scenario that characterizes other early EBA sites in the High Euphrates Valley (i.e. Norşuntepe, Tepecik, Nevalı Çori, Hassek Höyük; see: Becker, 2007, Esin, 1982, Gerber, 2007, Hauptmann, 1982), this evidence has allowed most scholars to hypothesize that the centralized economic model typical of the 4th millennium Uruk and Uruk-related worlds was disrupted (Akkermans and Schwartz, 2003, Frangipane, 2000, Frangipane, 2001). Yet, despite this general assumption, the picture still needs to be developed: past studies on the early 3rd millennium BCE have suggested a shift towards new forms of power based on a stronger emphasis on warfare and war imagery and on the related emergence of individual leadership, but – because they mainly focus on burial evidence (Frangipane et al., 2001, Helwing, 2012, Palumbi, 2012) – they have not dealt with such issues as the degree of control held by the elite over the primary economy and the daily activities of the common people. There are currently very few studies focusing on the early EBA socio-economic organization and so far none of them have concentrated on the household level. To help fill this gap, the settlement of Arslantepe — VI B2 represents a case of particular interest: in this period (including two main sub-phases which have been identified) a monumental wall was first built to shelter the upper part of the hill (early VI B2), and shortly thereafter a rural village was developed to the south of it (late VI B2, Fig. 2), consisting of small mud-brick houses separated by narrow perpendicular streets (Alvaro, 2010, Frangipane and Palmieri, 1983b, Frangipane, 2012, Palumbi, 2008, Piccione, 2009). At the end of this period, the settlement was violently destroyed by a fire: this event (confirming the role played by conflict in this phase) led to the recovery of an exceptionally rich in situ assemblage sealed in the destruction layer of the mud-brick structures. The settlement was excavated extensively and a multidisciplinary research aimed at identifying domestic activities and their distribution throughout the village is underway.

In this study, special attention has been given to the spatial patterning of artifacts and ecofacts in four complementary indoor and outdoor spaces making up a single dwelling (building XXXVIII, Figs. 2, 3). With the aim of analyzing household economy in an early EBA context and demonstrating the potential of a multidisciplinary methodology, we present the archaeobotanical and archaeozoological evidence from this residence, and discuss ecofactual data together with the spatial patterning of ceramic, lithic, textile and metal artifacts from the same house, whose results have singularly been analyzed in previous works (Di Nocera, 2010, Laurito, 2010, Piccione, 2010, Piccione and Lemorini, 2012).

Section snippets

Materials and methods

Building XXXVIII (included in squares D8(7)(8)(11)(12) and E8(9)) was excavated during the summer in 1992 and 1993. All the finds were labeled according to their stratigraphic position and, regarding those retrieved on the floors, the topographic location was also carefully recorded. In addition to materials recovered on the floors, finds in the structures' fill were also considered. In fact, as the artifacts and ecofacts belonging to the original assemblage within the rooms had been sealed in

Results

The spatial patterning of materials in building XXXVIII is shown in two main archeological plans: one displaying the ‘raw’ scattering of finds (Fig. 4) and focusing in particular on charcoals and animal bones; and another (Fig. 5) presenting a reconstruction of the original position of the materials, specifically of pots, lithics and seeds. Additionally, a N–S profile of rooms A736 and A707 (Fig. 6) is presented to illustrate the stratigraphic position of building XXXVIII in the archeological

Discussion: functional interpretation of spaces in building XXXVIII

Access to building XXXVIII was from courtyard A710: the west part of this area had no installations or particular concentrations of findings and was possibly more for ‘transit’, whereas the east section, furnished with a small semi-circular bench, was characterized by larger quantities of either artifacts or ecofacts and was possibly an activity area. The assemblage of vessels recovered on this side of the courtyard – including two cooking pots found on the floor of its central part, another

Conclusions

Through an integrated approach, this work has used the distribution of materials to address the issues of the use of space and household economy in a residential unit (building XXXVIII) that can be considered as a case study for testing a methodology to be used for the entire settlement of Arslantepe — VI B2 (analyses underway). The spatial patterning of both the artifacts and ecofacts has shown a clear differentiation between the four areas of this house, each characterized by specific

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Marcella Frangipane for having entrusted us with the study of the materials of Arslantepe — period VI B2 and for providing excellent comments and suggestions for this work. The help of Francesca Balossi Restelli was invaluable in accessing the data of the M.A.I.A.O. archives, discussing the results of our work with us and assisting us at the proofreading stage. Alice Choyke, Gian Maria Di Nocera and Romina Laurito generously shared with us the results of their works

References (77)

  • C. Alvaro et al.

    Chapter IV.2 — timber use at the end of the 4th millennium BC at Arslantepe

  • P. Akkermans et al.

    The Archaeology of Syria

    (2003)
  • B. Arıkan et al.

    The Bronze Age Comparative Modeling of the Surface Processes and Land Use in the Malatya Plain (Turkey). Quaternary Science Review

    (2015)
  • F. Balossi Restelli

    Hearth and home. Interpreting fire installations at Arslantepe (Eastern Turkey) from the fourth to the beginning of the second millennium BCE

    Paléorient

    (2015)
  • F. Balossi Restelli et al.

    Chapter V — agriculture at Arslantepe at the end of the IV millennium BC. Did the centralised political institutions have an influence on farming practices?

  • I. Baneschi et al.

    The use of stable carbon isotopes in palaeoenvironmental studies in archaeology: the example of Arslantepe (Malatya, Eastern Anatolia) from 5300 to 3950 years BP

    Rend. Online Soc. Geol. It.

    (2012)
  • L. Bartosiewicz

    Interim report on the Bronze Age animal bones from Arslantepe (Malatya, Anatolia)

  • L. Bartosiewicz

    Chapter VI. Herding in Period VI A. Development and changes from Period VII

  • Becker, J., 2007. Nevalı Çorı. Keramik und kleinfunde der Halaf- und Frühbronzezeit. Philipp von Zabern, Mainz am...
  • I. Caneva

    Note sull'industria litica di Arslantepe (Turchia). Origini VII

    (1973)
  • I. Caneva

    L'industria litica di Arslantepe

  • I. Caneva

    From Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age III at Arslantepe: a lithic perspective

  • A.T. Clason et al.

    Patterns in Animal Food Resources in the Bronze Age in the Orient

  • S. Di Lernia et al.

    Inside the “African Cattle Complex”: animal burials in the Holocene Central Sahara

    PLoS ONE

    (2013)
  • G.M. Di Nocera

    Chapter XIII — metals and metallurgy. Their place in the Arslantepe society between the end of the 4th and beginning of the 3rd Millennium BC

  • U. Esin

    Tepecik excavations, 1974

  • Flora Europaea....
  • C.P. Foster

    The Uruk phenomenon: a view from the household

  • M. Frangipane

    A 4th millennium temple/palace complex at Arslantepe-Malatya. North–south relations and the formation of early state societies in the northern regions of Greater Mesopotamia

    Paléorient

    (1997)
  • M. Frangipane

    The Late Chalcolithic/EBI sequence at Arslantepe. Chronological and cultural remarks from a frontier site

  • M. Frangipane

    The transition between two opposing forms of power at Arslantepe (Malatya) at the beginning of the 3rd Millennium

    Tüba-Ar

    (2001)
  • M. Frangipane

    The Collapse of the 4th Millennium Centralized System at Arslantepe and the Far-reaching Changes in 3rd Millennium Societies. Origini XXXIV

    (2012)
  • M. Frangipane et al.

    New symbols of a new power in a “royal” tomb from 3000 BC Arslantepe, Malatya (Turkey)

    Paléorient

    (2001)
  • M. Frangipane et al.

    L'interazione tra due universi socio-culturali nella piana di Malatya (Turchia) tra IV e III millennio: dati archeologici e riconoscimento di identità, Origini XXVII

    (2005)
  • M. Frangipane et al.

    Arslantepe Cretulae

  • M. Frangipane et al.

    Perspectives on Protourbanization in Eastern Anatolia: Arslantepe (Malatya). An Interim Report on 1975–1983 Campaigns. A Protourban Centre of the Late Uruk Period. Origini XII-2

    (1983)
  • M. Frangipane et al.

    Perspectives on Protourbanization in Eastern Anatolia: Arslantepe (Malatya). An Interim Report on 1975–1983 Campaigns. Cultural Developments at Arslantepe at the Beginning of Third Millennium, Origini XII-2

    (1983)
  • M. Frangipane et al.

    Un modello di ricostruzione dello sviluppo della metallurgia antica: il sito di Arslantepe

    Scienze dell'Antichità

    (1994–1995)
  • Cited by (5)

    • δ<sup>13</sup>C and δ<sup>15</sup>N from <sup>14</sup>C-AMS dated cereal grains reveal agricultural practices during 4300–2000 BC at Arslantepe (Turkey)

      2017, Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology
      Citation Excerpt :

      A similar animal husbandry model based on the key role of caprines has been reconstructed for the VI B1 pastoralist settlement (Siracusano and Bartosiewicz, 2012). A gradual increase in beef consumption is reported in the VI B2 rural village (Piccione et al., 2015). Archaeozoological analysis is still ongoing for the following periods.

    • Comparative modeling of Bronze Age land use in the Malatya Plain (Turkey)

      2016, Quaternary Science Reviews
      Citation Excerpt :

      Important information on agriculture and staples has been obtained from the study of seeds and fruits. In addition, wood remains have also provided data on structural elements, fuel, tools, and movable objects (Alvaro, 2010; Piccione et al., 2015; Sadori and Masi, 2012; Sadori et al., 2006, 2008; Vignola et al., 2014). Moreover, the archaeobotanical assemblage constituted an excellent database for paleoenvironmental reconstruction based on stable carbon isotope analysis (Baneschi et al., 2012; Masi et al., 2013a, 2013b, 2014).

    Authorship statement: P.P. coordinated the research, provided data on ceramics and wrote the conclusions. Together with C.A. she also examined stratigraphic and distributional data in the Arslantepe archive. C.A. discussed the architectural features and elaborated all plans and sections. C.L. carried out analyses on lithics. L.B. examined and discussed the archaeozoological data and laid out all figures concerning archaeozoological finds. Plant materials were analyzed and interpreted by A.M. and L.S. The introduction was written jointly by A.M. and P.P. Finally, all authors contributed equally to the discussion section and commented on the manuscript at all stages.

    View full text