|
THE EMERY AND CLAIRE YASS PUBLICATIONS IN ARCHAEOLOGY
Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 17 Ethnoarchaeology of Anatolia: Rural Socio-Economy in the Bronze and Iron Ages Jak Yakar Tel Aviv 2000  INTRODUCTION Chapter 1: THE ANATOLIAN LANDSCAPE Chapter 2: ANATOLIAN SOCIETY THROUGH THE AGES EARLY BRONZE AGE THE ASSYRIAN COLONY PERIOD: ANATOLIAN PRINCIPALITIES THE HITTITE STATE IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE HITTITE KINGDOM THE ACHAEMENID SATRAPY SYSTEM THE SELEUCIDS AND OTHER HELLENISTIC STATES THE INVASION OF THE CELTS THE ROMAN PERIOD THE BYZANTINE PERIOD THE SELJUK (SELCUK) STATE THE OTTOMAN STATE Chapter 3: ETHNIC DIVERSITY OF ANATOLIA TURKS TÜRKMEN (TURKMAN/TURKOMAN) TURKMEN AFFILIATED GROUPS YÖRÜK (YORUK) TATARS TURKISTANI GROUPS CAUCASIAN AND TRANSCAUCASIAN GROUPS AZERI TURKS KURDS (KÜRT) ZAZA LAZ HEMSiNLI ARABS ARAMEANS GYPSIES ARMENIANS Chapter 4: ETHNOGRAPHY IN THE ANATOLIAN COUNTRYSIDE TRADITIONAL VILLAGE COMMUNITIES THE TRADITIONAL ANATOLIAN VILLAGE (KÖY) LOCALLY DEVELOPED SOCIO-ECONOMIC FRAMEWORKS VILLAGE ARCHITECTURE TRADITIONAL VILLAGE ECONOMY NOMADIC AND SEMI-NOMADIC COMMUNITIES NOMADIC AND SEMI-NOMADIC PASTORALISM Chapter 5: CENTRAL ANATOLIA: THE LAND OF HATTI GEOGRAPHY AND DISTRIBUTION OF ANCIENT SITES TRADITIONAL SETTLEMENT PATTERN AND LANDUSE BRONZE AND IRON AGE SETTLEMENT PATTERN THE ORGANIZATION OF THE COUNTRYSIDE EXPLOITATION OF CROWN LAND THE HITTITE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATION OF THE RURAL SECTOR FARMING IN HATTI Chapter 6: THE BLACK SEA REGION: THE LANDS OF TUMMANNA-PALA-KASKA GEOGRAPHY AND DISTRIBUTION OF ANCIENT SITES TRADITIONAL SETTLEMENT PATTERN AND LANDUSE BRONZE AND IRON AGE SETTLEMENT PATTERN ORGANIZATION OF THE COUNTRYSIDE IN THE HITTITE PERIOD Chapter 7: THE MARMARA REGION: THE KINGDOM OF WILUSA AND THE TRIBAL LANDS OF THRACE GEOGRAPHY AND DISTRIBUTION OF ANCIENT SITES TRADITIONAL SETTLEMENT PATTERN AND LANDUSE BRONZE AND IRON AGE SETTLEMENT PATTERN BRONZE AND IRON AGE ORGANIZATION OF THE COUNTRYSIDE Chapter 8: THE AEGEAN REGION: ARZAWA AND ARZAWAN STATES—MINOAN AND MYCENAEAN COLONIES GEOGRAPHY AND DISTRIBUTION OF ANCIENT SITES TRADITIONAL SETTLEMENT PATTERN AND LANDUSE BRONZE AND IRON AGE SETTLEMENT PATTERN MINOANS IN THE AEGEAN LITTORAL OF ANATOLIA ARZAWA AND THE ARZAWAN STATES MYCENAEANS IN THE AEGEAN LITTORAL OF ANATOLIA SOCIO-ECONOMIC ORGANIZATION OF THE COUNTRYSIDE IN THE BRONZE AGE ECONOMIC ORGANIZATION OF THE RURAL SECTOR IN THE IRON AGE Chapter 9: THE MEDITERRANEAN REGION: LUKKA-TARHUNTASSA-KIZZUWATNA-MUKISH GEOGRAPHY AND DISTRIBUTION OF ANCIENT SITES TRADITIONAL SETTLEMENT PATTERN AND LANDUSE BRONZE AND IRON AGE SETTLEMENT PATTERN LYCIA AND PAMPHYLIA PISIDIA CILICIA THE AMUQ PLAIN AND THE ANTI-TAURUS REGION SOCIO-ECONOMIC ORGANIZATION IN THE HITTITE AND POST-HITTITE PERIODS LUKKA THE MEDITERRANEAN LITTORAL OF TARHUNTASSA KIZZUWATNA MUKISH Chapter 10: EASTERN ANATOLIA: HIGHLAND NEIGHBOURS OF THE HITTITES GEOGRAPHY AND DISTRIBUTION OF ANCIENT SITES TRADITIONAL SETTLEMENT PATTERN AND LANDUSE BRONZE AND IRON AGE SETTLEMENT PATTERN THE PLAINS OF ELAZIG, MALATYA AND ELBISTAN THE HIGHLANDS OF KARS, ERZURUM, ERZINCAN, TUNCELI AND BINGOL THE VAN BASIN AND THE HIGHLANDS OF AGRI, HAKKARI, MUŞ AND BITLIS HISTORY AND ORGANIZATION OF THE COUNTRYSIDE IN THE HITTITE PERIOD ISUWA, ARMATANA AND TEGARAMA THE LAND OF AZZI-HAYASA TRIBAL POLITIES OF THE LATE BRONZE—EARLY IRON AGE CONTINUITY OF TRIBAL FRAMEWORKS THE URARTIAN KINGDOM BACK TO TRIBAL POLITIES Chapter 11: SOUTHEASTERN TURKEY: HURRIAN/MITANNIAN DOMINATED TERRITORIES GEOGRAPHY AND DISTRIBUTION OF ANCIENT SITES TRADITIONAL SETTLEMENT PATTERN AND LANDUSE BRONZE AND IRON AGE SETTLEMENT PATTERN THE EMERGENCE OF STATE SOCIETIES THE COUNTRYSIDE UNDER THE KINGDOM OF MITANNI THE MIDDLE ASSYRIAN PERIOD THE COUNTRYSIDE IN THE IRON AGE Chapter 12: INHERENT ELEMENTS IN ANATOLIAN SOCIETY: A DISCUSSION REFLECTIONS OF ETHNICITY THE VILLAGE THE EVOLUTION OF CITIES CONCEPTS OF SOVEREIGNTY THE SOCIAL PYRAMID LAND MANAGEMENT NOMADS AND THE STATE WHEN LAW AND ORDER BREAK DOWN References INTRODUCTION Archaeology as an independent discipline has its limits when it comes to reconstructing the social and economic organization of pre-state societies in Anatolia. This can be partially achieved through ethnoarchaeology which compares patterns discerned in archaeological contexts with those recorded in traditional rural societies. The rich ethnographic material from Anatolia can indeed be used selectively to decipher the enigmatic archaeological records pertaining to the economic and social aspects of Bronze and Iron Age rural communities. The ethnographic records of Turkey are unique in that the Republic, which was created a little over three generations ago, inherited a micro-model of the population composition from the Ottoman empire. Although in modern Turkey large tribal organizations no longer exist, the smaller dispersed tribal groups and village communities living in remote areas have succeeded in preserving not only their ethnic identities but also many of the deeply rooted forms of social organization and subsistence strategies. The records of such rural communities, especially those living in the eastern and southeastern provinces where tribal structure remained an important component of the social organization among the nomadic and semi-nomadic pastoralists, constitute a rich and varied data base of the 'archaeology of the living' in Turkey. Even when dealing with literate societies of the second millennium B.C.E., ethnography can complement archaeology and written documentation in understanding the material culture manifestations of social status and class differentiation in domestic architecture or burial customs. While the Cappadocian texts of the Assyrian Colony (Principalities) period from Karum Kanis (Kültepe) or the Hittite texts from Hattusa (Bogazköy) provide some details on the ethnic composition or the social pyramid of Anatolian state societies, they do not describe the differences between a village household and one located in a town or city. Ethnographic models can be particularly informative when focusing on the archaeology of single habitation units; 'archaeology of the house'. They demonstrate that village houses of extended families undergo frequent expansions and alterations, mainly to make room for new couples. Such architectural transformations which involve the knocking down of a wall or two for the addition of an annex can take place quite frequently even within a short-time span. Although such alterations - defined as architectural sub-phases - are easy to detect archaeologically, it is difficult to date them precisely within a generation or two. Larger architectural transformations take place after about three generations when the extended household is gradually fragmented. This happens when the third generation starts to form nuclear families and build their own houses within the settlement. In archaeological terms settlement types are usually defined on the basis of their location, size, architectural characteristics and the composition of their material culture assemblages. Interdisciplinary field studies which investigate topographic features, palaeosoils, palaeoclimates and distribution of natural resources can partly explain the ecological and thus the economic significance of site locations. While such research can certainly narrow the range of possible palaeodemographic (Angel 1969) and palaeosocio-economic structures in a given region, they must be combined with pertinent historical and ethnographic records to produce a broader picture. Archaeology can easily distinguish a town from a simple village by defining the size of the settlement and the presence of public buildings, fortifications and temples in the former. However, classifying a village as seasonally occupied or permanently inhabited is more problematic. Seasonal villages are distinguished from permanent settlements by site-location as well as the absence of built-in features like fire-places, ovens, food processing, storage installations and non-artefactual evidence associated with farming. While both archaeological and literary records suggest that farming was the backbone of the economy in Hatti, and Hittite documents indirectly refer to the structure of village administrations, it is still difficult to visualize a Hittite village in central Anatolia, or for that matter a Hurrian village in eastern Anatolia or southeastern Turkey. Here ethnographic models can supplement archaeological information that written records fail to transmit. Similar problems of interpretation are encountered when dealing with farming activities. Although texts mention the various population sectors involved in agriculture, the technical (the use of draught animals and agricultural tools) and economic aspects (the value of fields or food plants), service liabilities (the communal responsibility for working crown land), they are not very explicit about sharecropping arrangements or the handling of crises due to crop failure. For instance, since agriculture in the semi-arid provinces of Hatti or Mitanni, would not have been a trouble-free economic endeavour for most farming communities, ethnography can illustrate the measures taken by Hittite and Hurrian farmers to ensure the success of their economies. The importance of ethnographic models become self-evident when trying to reconstruct the socio-economic organization of rural settlements from their architectural characteristics and artefactual assemblages. Through the 'archaeology of the living', the extent to which ethnicity is reflected by settlement pattern, socio-economic organization and village architecture can be understood (Aurenche 1984, 1996; Gorecki 1987; Gould 1980). With the help of traditional models one can tentatively explain whether changes in a settlement's layout, size and building technology during its occupation were due to socio-economic or cultural factors. Such changes can best be studied in villages that have relatively long histories of occupation that can be pieced together. Villages dating from Byzantine, Seljuk and Ottoman periods are usually found in the western, southwestern, west-central and central provinces. Rural settlements originally inhabited by Greek farmers in the Aegean or Black Sea Region or those by Armenian peasantry in the east are important source of information in ethnoarchaeological studies. It is the remote villages that illustrate best the way rural economic activities would have been organized and pursued in the distant past. Ethnographic models demonstrate that such communities create their own particular brands of organization, and their mode of economy is not reflected by the village architecture. Ethnography is also an invaluable tool for assessing the influence of the natural environment on rural economies and its role in determining the size and organization of village communities in pre-state and state-societies. Anatolia is divided into seven climatic regions including southeastern Turkey which is actually the northern periphery of Syro-Mesopotamia. Throughout history, these regions were settled mostly by farmers who tried to adapt to the conditions of their macro and micro habitats. Those who failed in their economic endeavours moved out, while others with different ethno-cultural backgrounds replaced them. The present-day rural communities which continue to pursue the traditional economic mode based on pastoralism in the Taurus range and in the eastern Pontus mountains, created two contrasting settlement patterns. Climatic conditions rather than ethno-cultural differences were more significant in dictating these two modes of settlement: nomadic/semi-nomadic pastoralism and sedentary/transhumant. Already in pre-state societies there must have been an awareness among farmers and nomadic or semi-nomadic pastoralists that the economic success of their respective strategies depended on maintaining the correct balance between the structure and size of a community and the carrying capacity of the land. Different modes of settlement in a given region, when not in stratigraphic succession, can point to cultural, social and economic diffein interacting or co-existing communities. The invasion of Anatolia in stages by Turkish nomads from Central Asia is historically and culturally well recorded. These records going back almost a thousand years provide important insights as to the length of time, extent and conditions under which the individual ethno-cultural identities of invading and invaded groups are preserved. The Turkmen did not impose their way of life on the indigenous farmers of Anatolia despite the fact that their increasing political power in the Anatolian countryside brought about demographic changes. Such data, when transformed into models, assist in the interpretation of patterns of cultural continuity in pre- and post-Hittite societies (i.e., in assessing the cultural impact of Indo-Europeans on native Anatolians or vice-versa). The preservation of ingrained cultural traditions among ethnic groups serves to maintain group identity if not always political unity. Group identity is preserved in language, folklore, religion, literature, music, clothing and cooking. Although language and religion are outward signs of ethnicity, they are not always absolute determinants. For instance, while Armenians, Greeks, Syrian Orthodox Christians and Jews are recognized by their inherited language and religion, the Laz and the Muslim Georgian groups living in neighbouring communities are differentiated only by their languages. On the other hand, the Circassians and Abkhazians are distinguished not only by their respective dialects but also by slightly different characteristics in tribal structure. The Alevi Turks are identified by their religious sect but the Alevi Türkmen groups differ from them in that they still maintain their traditional tribal organization. The Alevi Kurds can be identified as a separate entity from the Zaza mainly on the basis of historical records, or from the Sunni Kurds by differences in their respective religious customs, tribal affiliation and organization. The Sunni Türkmen are distinguishable from the Yörük by their different folklore, ceremonial clothing, head-dresses and the jewellery worn by the women. Manipulation of tribal group identity for political ends has on occasion produced fictive affiliations and hence contradictory information on the ancestry of certain tribes. Nevertheless, regardless of the depth of their roots to the past, they provide valuable information on tribal and clan structures as well as the nature of kin-based ties in sedentary communities. Although in most cases the claim to a common descent from legendary ancestors and a communal history in a primary homeland is historically untenable, both the settled or still nomadic tribal communities provide convincing illustrations of social frameworks which have changed very little over the centuries. As in later periods, tribal structures in the Bronze and Iron Ages could have been formed by the merging of small ethno-culturally affiliated groups in enclosed habitats to strengthen their territorial grip against stronger rival groups. Historical records regarding the formation or dissolution of tribal confederacies and structural transformations which numerous Anatolian tribes underwent during the Ottoman period demonstrate that in state societies the permanency of size or location of 'ancestral' territories should be measured in terms of generations rather than centuries. This holds true particularly when the waning political power of a tribe led to its fragmentation and geographic relocation of its components. This must be borne in mind when defining the territories of ancient tribal entities/polities such as the Iron Age Mushki or the Late Bronze Age Lukka or Kaska on the basis of geographic references in historical records. Through a synthesis of the information gleaned from multidisciplinary studies, it can be demonstrated that the socio-economic organization of rural communities in state societies must have been basically the same in the past as that of traditional societies of today. By investigating the activity and organizational patterns of the latter, models can be constructed and applied to ancient societies.
MONOGRAPH SERIES OF THE SONIA AND MARCO NADLER INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
|