The network structure

What do networks look like in the real world? It can be argued that the physical network of transport links across modern Turkey is a small subset of a much larger road system stretching across Eurasia and Africa almost seamlessly. Even though we lack the archaeological evidence, one could suggest that in the 3rd millennium BC it might have been the same, since even then human communities were rarely so isolated as to be effectively disconnected from a web of roads or established routes that ultimately linked the whole continent. In practice, physical networks are extremely large today and might have been so in the past as well; however, in a world without internet and telephone, social networks would have been much more fragmented and restricted in space. The accounts of Medieval travellers such as Matteo Ricci or the Polo family prove that it was theoretically possible to traverse the whole of Eurasia over the course of a few years. Yet, the distances involved, the potential dangers and the degree of political, linguistic and cultural fragmentation made it so that very few people actually attempted the journey (cf. Wilkinson 2014b:92-94 on the literary trope of the Silk Road). Moreover, at present there is no evidence that EBA Anatolia was (indirectly) connected with communities beyond India and Afghanistan, for instance (section 7.2.3).

While the structure of physical networks is quite self-evident, that of social networks is more difficult to disentangle, since the boundaries between one and another are not clearly definable and they are heterogeneous in their social components and in space (cf. Knappett 2011:27, 43- 44; Newman 2003:17-19; Smith M 2005:835-837). This phenomenon is acknowledged for networks of different scales by several researchers, that however code it differently in their analysis: from the core/periphery/margin distinction (Sherratt A 1993), to the idea of “cliques”, “communities” or “clusters” that represent more coherent and denser patterns of interaction within a group of people embedded in an otherwise larger and sparser network (Expert et al.2011:1; Knappett 2011:42-44; Newman 2003:17). Furthermore, as already mentioned, in the absence of supporting textual evidence, the archaeological record is essentially unable to recognise personal relationships, and this results in a low visibility of social networks. Equally, while among living communities ethnic affiliation is a central factor in shaping patterns of

62

group interaction (e.g. Barth 1969a, 1969b; Hodder 1977), this is an element that cannot be identified from archaeological remains alone and thus cannot be studied in any detail. Attempting to identify potential social networks is also a process hampered by patchiness in the quality and quantity of the data at hand. In addition, the quantification of homogeneity in cultural traits is largely a matter of scale and analytical perspective: at larger spatial scales, similarities in material culture shared by different communities become more and more tenuous, and it is partly a subjective choice where to draw the imaginary line between similar/dissimilar. For this reason, the social networks suggested in this dissertation have deliberately very fuzzy boundaries, and are conceived as entities with different degrees of internal cohesiveness. In the absence of an archaeological project in EBA Anatolia that has both enough data resolution to identify small-scale (intra-valley) networks and a large enough extent to allow modelling on the regional and interregional scale, I will employ the modern settlement and road network of the Lake District in southern Turkey to illustrate some of the concepts presented below (fig.2.1, cf. caption for details). A brief glance at the map shows that today (as in the EBA) the physical landscape strongly constrains both settlements (with the majority of population concentrated in the lowlands) and movement between them (with the development of most roads largely restricted to the plains), and that topographic and hydrological barriers funnel roads through a limited number of crossing points. The same factors also promote the formation of communities that experience intense interaction between their members but have fewer contacts with others (what is called a “small-world effect” in network theory, cf. Watts and Strogatz 1998 for the concept), a phenomenon that can occur at different spatial scales (fig.2.2). One could further argue that the mountainous environment that separates the intra- montane valleys in the Lake District from the central Anatolian plateau in the east might act today (as it may well have done in the EBA) as a persistent cultural frontier. This is more understandable if we consider travel times, that are to large extent dependant on transport technology, road infrastructure and terrain (slope and vegetation). While today the whole Lake District network (c.200km in diameter) can be crossed in a few hours with a motorised vehicle and following the main roads, in the EBA it would have taken 5-7 days on foot or with a donkey, and more with a cart (cf. fig.3.8). This suggests that the intensity of interaction between distant communities might have been much lower than today (cf. Rivers et al.2013:111-112, fig.5.5). The analyses presented later in the dissertation do indeed suggest that some clear patterns can be extrapolated from the distribution of large numbers of EBA Anatolian artefact types and behaviours (chapters 5-7). While some transcend and cross over major cultural and physical boundaries (arguably technological knowledge, luxury goods and elite behaviours), many others are very much constrained by them (arguably daily-life items, objects related to the private religious sphere, funerary customs). Intriguingly, the spatial distributions of types in the

63

latter category often seem to revolve around quite definable geographic spaces, areas delimited by the abovementioned persistent cultural frontiers. Even more interesting is that some of these frontiers can be identified in patterns of material culture from later periods as well, and unsurprisingly broadly follow major topographic and hydrological boundaries (section 8.1). This suggests that in several cases distinct social networks composed of different goods/know- how/behaviours and probably different social groups did however produce coherent archaeological assemblages that are spatially correlated across time (cf. Braudel’s concept of longue durée cultural phenomena being partly shaped by the environmental conditions peculiar to a given region, 1958:753).

The distinction made earlier about physical and social networks becomes now very useful to understand how differently they behave in real-world landscapes. From the examples provided in figs.2.3-2.7, it seems clear that a single social network normally uses up only a portion of the available road network. The same examples also show how different social networks do exist in the same physical space and may use the same road network. To offer an archaeological example, a Mesopotamian trader and a local farmer might have walked on the main road to Kültepe, one on a 6-week journey with their donkeys to exchange tin and textiles, the other on a daily trip to the local market. While in many cases there is little interlacing between different social networks, others partly share the same members, and witness the circulation of similar types of goods and information. So the boundaries between one social network and another should be conceived as fuzzy, partially overlapping and with different degree of integration. An interesting pattern that also seems to emerge from figs.2.4-2.7 is that large centres and main roads play in all cases an important role in the movement of individuals; however the degree to which they participate in different social networks varies according to the scale of the network, the identity of the members involved, and the type of goods and information that is circulated. In the example, friendship relations and the circulation of local food products tend to occur also in smaller settlements and employ the local roads more intensely, whereas prestige and administrative networks tend to focus on large centres and employ main traffic arteries more prominently. Chapters 5, 6 and 7 will attempt to analyse these patterns in archaeological contexts.

Even though a formal analytical methodology related to the already-mentioned network science will not be employed directly in this dissertation, given the highly-fragmentary nature of the archaeological record (in particular of the EBA Anatolian record), it is worth mentioning here two key theoretical concepts that have considerable relevance in the following analyses and discussion: those of “hub” and “gateway” (cf. Knappett 2011:39-45; Newman 2003:44; Rivers et al.2013:102). An important recognition of network theory is that flows of materials and information do not run in equal measure through the various components of the networks, the

64

so-called “nodes”, i.e. individuals, groups, or settlements in archaeological terms (fig.2.8). Instead, the intensity of interaction flowing through a specific node is dependent on its ability to draw interaction, either because of its position within the network (more central or peripheral), its geographic location (closer or farther from main routes) or because particular properties that attract traffic (e.g. economic, political, religious significance). Two different types of nodes with high-intensity interaction can be recognised, based on the nature of their relationship with components of the same network and with those of different networks. “Hubs” can be defined as nodes that have numerous connections with other participants of the same network (and are thus central to it), while “gateways” are nodes that have connections with participants to other networks, and thus act as bridges between two different systems (fig.2.9). Certain nodes can be both hubs and gateways, i.e. function both as central sites within their own network and connector sites between otherwise different networks. The EBA site of Hacımusalar, at the centre of the Elmalı plain is a good example of hub, while small EBA coastal sites at the interface between the Aegean and western Anatolian networks (such as Thermi, Çukuriçi Höyük, Iasos) can be described as gateways. Settlements that are both hubs and gateways are Troy and Poliochni, that sit at the interface between several distinct maritime (Aegean, Balkans and Black Sea) and overland (western and central Anatolia) networks.

In one of the very few studies of actual ancient road networks, Bjorn Menze and Jason Ur managed to identify some 14,000 ancient sites and 6,000km of dirt-roads (“hollow ways”) in the Khabur basin, through a decade of satellite imagery analysis (2012). An essential point of their study is that they recognised a strong positive correlation between the physical size of a site (the volume of a tell) and its centrality within the network (i.e. its importance as hub), demonstrating that the size of a settlement grew in parallel with its centrality in the network (fig.2.10, Menze and Ur 2012:786). Even though a comparable analysis cannot be performed in EBA Anatolia, it seems feasible to suggest that similar patterning is likely to have occurred here as well, and it can be proposed that larger sites may be identified as hubs at the regional and interregional scales. To complement this, Naoise Mac Sweeny’s analysis of EBA Aegean social complexity has convincingly demonstrated a close connection between settlement size and the degree of social organisation, with larger sites (hubs) more likely to host public buildings and specialised workshops and to have better access to luxury resources (2004). In absence of better proxies for most of the sites under analysis, it can thus be argued that settlement size can be employed as a rough index to estimate its importance within the social network.

65