Metal artefact types as evidence for metal flows

The distribution of metal artefact types was traditionally seen as providing the most direct form of evidence of interaction and movement of metals (e.g. Stronach 1957). A very brief summary of the assemblages of each region is presented here, supported by visual material, folowed by a discussion of a few artefact groups which are relevant to the study of interregional interaction.

5.3.1 Metal assemblages in Transcaucasia/eastern Anatolia, 3000-1500BC

The number of metal objects recovered from archaeological contexts of the 3rd and 2nd millennium in Transcaucasia/eastern Anatolia often seems rather small compared to surrounding regions and later periods (Yakar 1984, 78; Palmieri, Sertok and Chernykh 1993; Yakar 2002). This is despite the very early history of metallurgy in the upper Euphrates (e.g. early copper beads from Çayönü).

Presumably this dearth is at least in part the result of limited excavations in some areas, but, equally, it also seems to be due to cultural practices that prevented the deposition of metal objects in the ground (to be discussed further below). In the

61 The levels of nickel have been taken as a marker of the ‘south-east’ Anatolian or Transcaucasian sources.

B A

C

D E F

G

500

0 1000 km

Figure 5.10. Summary of the broad direction of circulation of metals, in 3rd and 2nd millennium BC.

Figure 5.11. Prediction for centres of early tin-bronze experimentation – based on archaeotopogram (type B) showing sum of relative distance from copper and tin sources. In this archaetopogram, green areas thus show regions with relatively easy access to both metals (A. Balkans;

B. Marmara; C. Taurus and Cilicia; D. Luristan; E.

west Afghanistan; F. east Afghanistan; G. Zerafshan and Ferghana).

Early Bronze Age, a range of forms predominates (Figure 5.12). For example, in the EBAI/II levels at Karaz-Kahramanlar, there were “daggers, shaft-hole axes, chisels, pins, awls, some jewellery and at least one sickle” (Yakar 1984, 78; Esin 1969, 135). Some evidence for metal production and production techniques has also been uncovered at Kura-Arax/Early Transcaucasian sites: for example, crucibles at Sos Höyük (Hopkins 2003, 105). The ‘royal tomb’ of Arslantepe, dated to the beginning of the 3rd millennium, revealed an array of rich metal objects (Frangipane et al. 2001; Palmieri et al. 2002), including spearheads, dress pins, a diadem, earrings and bracelets, flat axes, and a dagger and a sword; and in a different part of the same site, contemporary evidence for metal production (Hauptmann and Palmieri 2000). More extensive data on early to mid-3rd millennium metallurgical traditions comes from sites to the north-east, in Transcaucasia (Kavtaradze 1999, 77; Chernykh 1992, 62). Forms include double-spiral-headed dress-pins, sickle blades, daggers, spearheads, earrings and shaft-hole axes. It is assumed that, given the similarity of ceramic traditions (the Kura-Arax

a.

b.

c.

Figure 5.12. Examples of the contents of metal assemblages of eastern Anatolian sites from the 3rd millennium BC: earlier: (a) Kura-Arax (courtesy of Russian Academy of Sciences; cf. Kohl 2007, 92;

Frangipane et al. 2001, 471-3); later: (b) Bedeni (kurgans) (Chernykh 1992, 105 fig.

33); (c) Sachkere (kurgan) (Chernykh 1992, 108 fig. 34).

Not at uniform scale.

pottery), the metalwork found at these Transcaucasian sites was also typical for much of eastern Anatolia. A similar argument is made for the later 3rd and early 2nd millennia, when substantial numbers of metal objects come from the Bedeni, Martkopi, Sachkere and Trialeti groups of burial kurgans (Chernykh 1992, 105, 108, 112; Kavtaradze 1999, 85) – although pottery traditions diverge somewhat during this period. In the Late Bronze Age (around 1600-1500BC to 1000BC) of the northern Caucasus, a vibrant metalworking tradition is recorded (Chernykh 1992, 275-295), including many finely crafted axes, swords and daggers (Figure 5.13), but similar assemblages have not been uncovered to the south.

5.3.2 Metal assemblages in western Central Asia, 3000-1500BC In Turkmenia and western Central Asia, the distribution of metal artefacts is also somewhat uneven both spatially and temporally. The majority of the objects come from grave contexts. For example, dating to the first half of the 3rd millennium, a sizeable number of metal objects was uncovered in cemeteries of the Sumbar valley (Khlopin 1983; Chlopin 1986; Khlopin 2002). Forms include dress-pins, two-sided knives, and maceheads (Figure 5.14). For the later 3rd and early 2nd millennia, larger metal assemblages include those of northern Bactria, such as Sapalli Depe and Dzarkutan (Kaniuth 2006, 2007), the often-looted cemeteries of southern Bactria (Ligabue and Salvatori 1990), the graves of Kopet piedmont sites such as Altyn Depe (Masson 1988), and also sites in Margiana (Chernykh 1992,

a. b.

Figure 5.13. Examples of the contents of metal assemblages of eastern Anatolian sites of the very late 3rd or early 2nd millennium BC: (a) and (b) Trialeti (kurgans) (Chernykh 1992, 112 fig. 36; Puturidze 2003, 119). Not at uniform scale.

a.

b.

c. d.

Figure 5.14. Examples of the contents of metal assemblages of western Central Asian sites of the early to mid 3rd millennium BC: (a) and (b) from Altyn Depe (Masson 1988, pls. xxxviii, xiv); (c) and (d) metal objects from the Sumbar cemeteries (Khlopin 1983, 223, 220). Not at uniform scale. (Images: courtesy of the Russian Academy of Sciences).

175, 178-181), for example the necropolis at Gonur Depe (Sarianidi 2001). This later corpus includes handled mirrors, handle-less mirrors, seal-amulets, various vessel types, bottles, maceheads, shafted axes (highly elaborated), arrowheads, two-bladed knives, single-two-bladed knives, hooks, needles, clothes pins (with various heads), cosmetic sticks, bracelets, earrings, diadems and miniatures of various sorts (Figure 5.15). Also relevant are metal objects and metal production evidence from nearby sites such as Tepe Hissar (Pigott 1989; Thornton 2009), or to the south, as at Shahr-i Sokhta (Hauptmann, Rehren and Schmitt-Strecker 2003; cf.

Thornton 2010), which in early periods showed strong ceramic connections with the Turkmenian sites, but during the late 3rd and 2nd millennia appear to have followed different cultural trajectories.

5.3.3 Patterns in metal assemblages

Notable in both regions, although perhaps more strongly pronounced in Central Asia, is the overall dearth of everyday metal tools in this corpus: even those weapons and tools which are recorded may often be seen as ceremonial or symbolic in some sense. Archaeologists have tended to favour the collection and publication of ‘interesting’ objects over the mundane, but everyday tools would be more likely to be recycled, given their relatively low value, and for similar reasons, would be less likely to have been intentionally deposited in graves. If grave goods are intended as a statement of the occupant’s (or the occupant’s family’s) social status, such tools would make a poor statement. It is worth taking the preponderance of

‘ornamental’ items (personal jewellery, cosmetic items and apparently symbolic

a. b.

e.

f. g.

c. d.

h.

Figure 5.15. Examples of the contents of metal assemblages 175 fig. 64); (f) Sapalli vessels and (g) seals (Kaniuth 2006,

weaponry and tools) seriously, therefore, and considering whether the tool/

weapon-based role of metals has sometimes been overplayed in the past: a major function of metal objects was still as a medium for social display.

Figure 5.16. An example of a ‘Bactrian axe’: intricated cast with three animal shapes (boar, goat and tiger) including silver inlay decoration for tiger’s stripes; British Museum, ME 123268 (photo: © Trustees of the British Museum,

#AN30790001).

Figure 5.17. Distribution of ‘BMAC’ objects outside Bactria and Margiana heartland, including ‘Bactrian axes’ (following Hiebert 1998, 154).

This image is not available in the e-book version for licencing reasons; see the British Museum online photo catalogue for images.

5.3.4 Metal artefact types

i. Bactrian axes

Many ‘Bactrian’ axe-heads (an example shown in Figure 5.16) have come to light in the art-market since the late 1970s, and this lack of provenance has made it rather difficult to create a comprehensive distribution of their find spots. Large numbers have come from southern Bactria, in modern day Afghanistan, and it seems reasonably clear that they are mainly derived from the zone of the ‘Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex’ of southern Turkmenia. Additionally, however, examples of such axes have been uncovered as far afield as Susa in western Iran, and at sites in southern Iran (Figure 5.17). For this reason, these axes have been taken as evidence for very long distance interaction, and compared with other items which seem to have circulated within an ‘inter-Iranian’ interaction sphere during the very late 3rd and early 2nd millennia BC, first explored in detail by Pierre Amiet (Amiet 1986). Other associated items include the ‘intercultural style’

steatite or chlorite bowls (Kohl 1978) whose production now seems to be centred around south-eastern Iran (Perrot and Madjidzadeh 2006) (as discussed in Section 4.4.1). Hiebert, noting the ‘intrusive’ nature of certain burials with such Bactrian axes and associated BMAC ceramic material, which are sporadically found in southern and especially south-eastern Iran, has suggested that they may represent individual proselytizing migrants – i.e. itinerant preachers – perhaps associated with early Zoroastrianism (Hiebert 1998). Whilst this theory is difficult to confirm or disprove, the fact that such axes may be associated with individuals (as part of personal burial assemblages) suggests particular ways in which such material may have travelled. Rather than an overall cultural koine across eastern Iran, one might be tempted to see this as a very specific sub-group or diaspora, with connections to a homeland in Central Asia.

ii. Decorative metal vessels

Also associated with this ‘inter-Iranian’ sphere of interaction, is a collection of eclectic decorated metal vessels (Dupree, Gouin and Omer 1971; Tosi and Wardak 1972; Potts 2008a; cf. Aruz and Wallenfels 2003, 360-366). The iconographic scheme represented by these varied sets of vessels seems to be broadly shared across Iran (see Figure 6.27a), though some designs and types have more restricted distribution. Whilst their distribution certainly suggests very long distance circulation of vessels, it is difficult to comment on the directionality of such a circulation: it is not clear where they were being produced (whether exported from one region, or made locally in each region), and it is not clear how they were distributed. Historical texts referring to Sumerian and Elamite military campaigns into highland Iran hint at possible mechanisms of circulation, in which extensive booty was extracted or tributes paid, presumably including metals (Potts 1999, 150ff ), and perhaps with other types of transfers (cf. Section 6.5.3).

In this context it is interesting to note a parallel situation in Caucasia – metal vessels with detailed iconographic schemes can be found in kurgans of the late 3rd or early 2nd millenium BC, though using different schemes and shapes. Metal vessels with highly elaborated decoration have been found amongst the assemblages at Karashamb, at Trialeti kurgan XVII from the Tsalka plateau (Kohl 2007, 115-116), dating to the early 2nd (or late 3rd) millennium and, from a later context,

at Hasanlu (Rubinson 2003). Again their iconographic links to Mesopotamia and Anatolia have been highlighted, and they contrast with earlier metal vessels from the 4th millennium Maikop assemblages, but again it is difficult to assert the directionality of exchange. Were these imported vessels from the south, locally manufactured imitations of southern vessels, or local products that were mimicked in the south? Perhaps it would be more useful to view both Caucasian and Central Asian vessels as fossils of a lively circulation in images, whose axis ran through Mesopotamia (Figure 5.18), but whose inspiration was drawn from different regions (Bellelli 1989). Such images could also have travelled in other media that have not survived in the archaeological record, and their subject matter in stories, poems and songs that could have travelled even further than material objects. The nature of these depictions also remind us of their role in or reflection of the transfer of dress styles (both textiles and accessories), something which is discussed further in the next chapter (see Section 6.7).