Death as a Performance and the Persistence of Memory

actions – by which members of a social group are distinguished.The richness of experiences that individuals bring to a group means that social groups should not be viewed as clearly defined entities, but instead as pluralistic units.104 Even so, social groups develop a cultural identity – the way a community perceives itself – that is at its most salient when a group confronts the ‘other’.105 In this respect, borderlands like the Caucasus offer ideal settings to study identities, as Barth’s influential study has shown.106

Ritual is socially prescribed symbolic behaviour.107 It is formalised rather than haphazard, and meaningful instead of utilitarian. As an act, it follows strict procedures that are performed by a group rather than an individual, in so far as ritual expresses the beliefs of a society. In this sense, ritual actions can take many forms and reflect both religious beliefs and secular experiences. Ritual performances can be used to connect with or invoke the spirit world, for instance, or to reinforce socially acceptable rules and social order. Rites can also be used to renegotiate the relative status of individuals and groups within a community, or even to challenge existing codes to rejuvenate a society.

Turning to funerary ritual, many anthropologists and archaeologists have been influenced by the early work of Arnold van Gennep,who maintained that ceremonial rites signal key transitions in the social status of an individual.108 These fundamental shifts in standing can be represented by events such as birth, puberty, marriage, parenthood, and death, but also may occur upon taking a political office. Whatever the social group, van Gennep found that the rites of passage of diverse societies shared certain broad features, including segregation, challenging trials that demarcate the old and the new, and liminal states, a socially ambiguous position from which individuals emerge into their new roles. Anthropologist Victor Turner developed this idea further when he wrote:109

Liminal entities are neither here nor there; they are betwixt and between the positions assigned and arrayed by law, custom, convention, and ceremony.As such, their ambiguous and intermediate attributes are expressed by a rich variety of symbols in many societies that ritualize social and cultural transitions.Thus, liminality is frequently likened to death, to being in the womb, to invisibility, to darkness, to bisexuality, to the wilderness, and to an eclipse of the sun or moon.

104Rapport 2014: 92–102.

105Jones 1996: 67.

106Barth 1969.

107Rappaport 1999.

108Van Gennep 1960.Amongst the many recent studies concerned with funerary ritual, see Laneri 2007; Parker Pearson 1999.

109Turner 1969: 95.

Although van Gennep’s ideas have been criticised for being too broad and universal to reflect the diversity of societies and their belief systems, they nonetheless provide a useful heuristic model from which to start.110

The 1970s was a watershed in archaeological approaches to funerary evidence.Tombs and their assemblages ceased to be studied as objects, but were now viewed as expressions of broader social systems.111 Status in life, it was argued, is reflected in treatment at death.112 Wealthy and powerful individuals were accorded ceremonies and provided with goods commensurate with their former position in the social group.The emphasis in this approach was on the interred individual. Those who see archaeological burials as reflecting the intentions of the survivors afford quite a different perspective. They maintain that the long and public mortuary process – a funeral is a process and not an event – might have been used to reaffirm or renegotiate cultural identity. According to this group, burials and their remains might have been deliberately manipulated to assert power and influence. Prestige objects in a tomb, for instance, are seen not as a manifestation of the influence or status of the deceased, but as an example of the ‘destruction of wealth’ by survivors to fulfil their aspirations of status.The capacity to dispose of wealth is an effective means to convince onlookers that power is warranted. But these two extremes need not be mutually exclusive. Burials and their accompanying ritual could indeed reflect both the social status of the dead and the machinations of survivors to maintain or increase their power and prestige.

I maintain that the inequality apparent in Maikop burials is the materialisation of an emergent elite ideology within the northern Caucasus. Inequality is less conspicuous in the Chalcolithic southern Caucasus, where it virtually disappeared in the subsequent Early Bronze Age (Chapter 5), only to re-emerge again during the so-called Early Kurgan period in the mid-third millennium BC (Chapter 7). Unlike the wealthy third-millennium mortuary complexes of Syria, such as Umm el-Marra, which were intra-mural and prominently positioned within the settlement, the wealthy Maikop burials were standalone monuments on the landscape, whose associated settlements have not been identified.113 Yet their visibility in the core area of the cultural province should not be ignored.That there are other large barrows, as yet unexcavated, might suggest either rival polities, or perhaps emulation by peers within the same group.The idea that these barrows reaffirmed territoriality and acted as monuments where ancestors were venerated has much to recommend it.That distinctive fl at top of Maikop barrows might well have been used as a platform to perform rituals.

110For a critique of van Gennep’s determinism, see Parker Pearson 1999: 21–3.

111Laneri 2007.

112Binford 1972; Saxe 1970.

113Schwartz 2007 for Umm el-Marra; see also Porter 2002 on Tell Banat.

172 Far-Flung Networks

The Crafts

Metalwork: Metal production is the highlight of the north Caucasian Chalcolithic.The sheer quantity and diversity of metalwork is second to none in the Old World.114 Its high visibility can be explained in part by the contents of the archaeological record, which favours tombs over settlements. Even so, this should not overshadow the skills and talents of the artisans. Metalwork is found in all phases of the Maikop culture, but it was most diversified during the late phase. Metalsmiths worked gold, silver, and copper throughout the Maikop culture, but the quantity and type of metal objects changed.The most notable difference is the decline in the number of objects manufactured from precious metals in Phase 2 (the Novosvobodnaia stage), with a concomitant increase overall in the quantity of artefacts produced, indicating a tendency towards copper objects.115 Furthermore, the quality of copperworking improved, with a more elaborate range of forms, especially amongst weapons and tools.

More than 200 objects have been analysed for their constituent elements by a number of laboratories (Moscow, Saint Petersburg, and Baku), and they appear to fall into two groups: one comprises arsenical-copper objects, which are concentrated in the Kuban region, whereas the others are copper-nickel- based and are found in Kabardino-Balkaria.116 Analyses show temporal patterns in chemical constituents. Arsenical copper was used for the majority of metal artefacts in both phases of the Maikop culture, but the amount of arsenic did not change, ranging from about 0.5 to 10 per cent. Nickel is a characteristic of arsenical copper and the amount in the Maikop objects varied from as low as one part per thousand to about 4.4 per cent, with artefacts from Phase 2 generally having low concentrations.117 In this regard, they are comparable to the chemical makeup of the later Kura-Araxes metalwork, to which they have often been compared.

Researchers are divided on how to interpret these data.The source of metal ores for the second group of objects, argues Chernykh, is the Near East, either Anatolia or Iran, owing to the lack of comparable metals in the northern Caucasus. Others have gone further and posited that almost all the metal tools and implements from the rich Maikop kurgans were imports from the Near East.118 This view must now be questioned given that nickel, copper, and precious-metals deposits have been located in the Caucasus.119 Accordingly, Galibin believes that the Maikop metalwork is a local product, and that the two

114Korenevskii 2011; Rezepkin 2010.

115Courcier 2007, 2010.

116Chernykh 1966, 1992.

117Courcier 2010: 79.

118For an overview see, Korenevskii 2008a.

119Courcier 2007, 2010.

groups do not reflect different origins, but rather the distribution of nickel in the northern Caucasus.120 Moreover, the quantity of nickel can vary depending on how the smith works the metal. Copper objects that are cold-worked, annealed, and then cold-worked again have higher concentrations of nickel than those that are cold-worked and annealed to a temperature of 600˚C.This does not preclude foreign influence having affected artistry. Certain daggers (Figure 4.15(1–7)) and various types of hoes and adzes (Figure 4.16(6)), once thought to be local innovations, have now been shown to have parallels in the Near East.121

The great kurgan at Maikop has provided many metal objects of the early phase, which include a dagger with rivets still attached (Figures 4.15(3)). Knives and daggers are the most common metal types during the later Maikop phase and they are ubiquitous,but particularly common at Chegem I and II.Daggers – a fighting knife for close combat – can be distinguished essentially on the basis of the blade, which was fl at in the early period and had a midrib and occasionally longitudinal grooves in the more developed late types (Figure 4.15(5, 7)).122 On the whole, the early daggers tend to be squatter, with sloping shoulders that gave them a lozenge shape. As they developed, the dagger blades became broader and rectangular-shaped, with horizontal or rounded shoulders. They can be small (ca. 4–7 cm) or long (greater than 20 cm in length). A wellpreserved example from Novosvobodnaia Barrow 31 (Burial 5) has traces of the wooden handle still attached (Figure 4.15(7)).123 Also from Novosvobodnaia (Barrow 2) is a dagger cast with a metal handle (Figure 4.15(6)).And from the Nal’chik burials comes a knife with a rounded end (Figure 4.15(1)). Swords, used for cutting and thrusting, appeared only in Maikop Phase 2.

Socketed axes form another category and are found mostly in the Kuban and Kabardino-Balkaria regions (Figure 4.16(1–5)). They have been classified according to shape and weight. Sergei Korenevskii has studied them in detail and has articulated a developmental sequence.124 The earliest (Group 1) are generally stubby and have a concave edge, whereas later examples of the second group are longer and invariably attributed to Maikop Phase 2.These later examples have variants classified on specific attributes such as a straight top edge, a narrowing at the socket, or a distinctive heel.125 Novosvobodnaia Barrow 31 yielded two unusual types of axes: one is decorated with imitation rivets and incised ornamentation along the edge, whereas the other has a narrow body and is decorated with circular holes filled with gold

120Galibin 1991.

121On the Near Eastern parallels, see Ivanova 2013: 98.

122Korenevskii 2011: 186–213.

123Rezepkin 2012: fig. 71: 20.

124Korenevskii 1974; 2011: 228–53.

125Korenevskii 1974; Courcier 2007: 212.

176 Far-Flung Networks

and silver (Figure 4.16(2, 4)). A comparable studded example comes from Novosvobodnaia Barrow 1 (Figure 4.16(1)).

This late phase saw a dramatic increase in awls, presumably used for leatherworking, which come in a range of lengths and cross-sections, some with a bent end. It also ushered in a new set of woodworking tools – chisels with a concave edge, fl at axes, and adzes, as well as the distinctive two-pronged tool and the loop of bronze.126 Though the adzes have been known from Iran (Sialk III) for many years, they appear to be a north Caucasian invention, with the first example from the southern Caucasus – from Orchosani, near Vale, in Georgia, just north of the Turkish border – discovered only recently. Both the form and nickel content (4.2 per cent) of the Orchosani example set it apart from south Caucasian metal types.127 Woodworking may not be the only activity of this tool kit. Courcier believes that the pick-axe (Figure 4.16(5)), a shaft-hole tool fashioned in metal and stone, was probably used in extractive mining.128 It increases in numbers in the later phase, and is also found elsewhere in the southern Caucasus, Daghestan, and Iran (Sé Girdan). Both its shape and the lack of impurities in some examples again points to the Balkans.

A conspicuous item is the socketed two-pronged tool with a sleeve of varying length that is sometimes horizontally grooved (Figure 4.15(8–10)).129 Associated with this type is the single hook. It has been suggested that the bident was used in ritual to hook out meat cooked in bronze containers.130

Spearheads from the northern Caucasus are similar to those from the KuraAraxes culture in the southern Caucasus and Arslantepe (Figure 4.17(1–6)). First, there are those with a narrow oval shape tapering to a point at one end, and a long and swollen shank for strengthening.These are comparable to spearheads from Anatolia and north Syria, including Arslantepe VIA and VIB and Tell Judaidah (Amuq H).131 The second type, currently found at one site in the north, is a lethal-looking narrow point with a squared section.The unique bronze disc, 15 cm in diameter, from Chegem I has an unknown function, though it might have been fitted to a shield as a boss, or used as a mirror for communication.132

Bronze cauldrons were a local product, not occurring elsewhere in the Near East or the southern Caucasus (Figure 4.18).They were made from sheets of bronze about 1 mm thick and, like most ceramic vessels, are globular or ovoid

126Korenevskii 2011: 262–78.

127Orjonikidze and Jibladze 2010: pl. 2:5. Despite the clear affinities with the northern Caucasus, the hoe’s context is very late – around the early Kurgan period of the southern Caucasus.

128Courcier 2007: 211; 2010: 79.

129Korenevski 2011: 228–90.

130Il’iukov 1979.

131Courcier 2007: 215; Korenevski 2011: 257–60.

132Korenevskii 1981: 276.

Figure 4.18. Maikop cauldrons: (1) Bamut; (2) Novosvobodnaia Barrow 1; (3) Novosvobodnaia Barrow 11 (after Munchaev 1975; 1994b; Rezepkin 2012).

in shape.133 They range in height from 21 to 53 cm. Most have been found in the burials at Novosvobodnaia, Bamut, and Tsagan-Nur, and largely in late Maikop contexts.These were not symbolic objects, but well used in ritual, as attested by the soot and signs of repair some examples bear. Complementing the cauldrons is a long-handled ladle from Novosvobodnaia and a dish found at Klady. In later burials, copper containers increased in number. Analyses reveal they contained arsenic, in some instances up to 8 per cent, and one vessel also had nickel – neither would have been conducive to good health.

An intriguing object is the loop of bronze bent from a rod, which sometimes ends in a knob (Figure 4.15(11–13)).These are called psalia in Russian, representing their supposed function as part of a cheek piece, though in reality their function is unknown.134 Viktor Trifonov and others have noted the striking resemblance to the circular attribute held by Mesopotamian deities.135

133Korenevskii 2011: 305–8.

134Munchaev 1975: 390; 1994b: fig. 57.

135Trifonov 1987a: 22–3; Bobokyan 2010.

from Chegem. Gold ribbons (diadems?) and rings were also manufactured, with the latter sometimes found with beads of semi-precious stones such as carnelian (Figure 4.12).We also have biconical paste pendants set in gold and silver.139 Metal beads are numerous and come in a great variety of shapes and sizes. They belong mostly to the late Maikop phase. Gold beads were more numerous than silver and come from the rich barrows including Nal’chik and Novosvobodnaia.

Chipped stone tools and other stone items: Agricultural implements made from stone have been found mostly in settlement deposits. There are two types of querns – saddle-shaped and an almost square, fl at variety – made from sandstone or hard volcanic rocks.140 Some are quite large, measuring up to 50 cm in length. Pestles are less common, usually oblong with a fl at working surface, though round types occur.Those from a tomb context include the pestle found at the feet of the skeleton at Inozemtsevo.141

Chipped stone tools are common, attested in both settlements and tombs. Most tools are knapped from flint. Rarely, they are made from obsidian, which was south Caucasian in origin.142 Parallel-sided and lunate sickle blades (Figure 14.17(8–9, 14)), often bearing use-wear sheen, were inserted within a bone or wooden haft. These microliths are characteristic of the early Maikop period and virtually disappear in later centuries.143 Other chipped stone tools included projectile points, awls, blades and scrapers. Late Maikop chipped tools are quite impressive and some excellent specimens have been found at Novosvobodnaia. Two are noteworthy and characteristic: an elongated leaf-shaped blade with a finely fl aked surface and serrated edges (Figure 14.17(12)), possibly used to cut meat, and an asymmetrical shouldered projectile point with a notched base (Figure 14.17(11)).144 The range of Maikop fl aked stone tools stands in contrast to the relatively restricted repertoire of the Kura-Araxes tradition.

Edge-ground stone axes are not particularly common during the Maikop period. One type of Early Chalcolithic shaft-hole stone axe made from diorite, with a thick butt, was reproduced in metal.145 Another has as curved butt and fl at face, and resembles a small shaft-holed hammer rather than an axe (Figure 4.17(13)).146 This type is restricted to the Kuban region and thought to derive from earlier Pit Grave types. Several were found at Chegem I and

139Munchaev 1994b: fig. 48: 15–18.

140Munchaev 1994b: 188, fig. 46; Hamon 2007.

141Munchaev 1994b: 189.

142About 5 per cent of the chipped stone tools from the site of Dolinskii were manufactured from obsidian (Kruglov and Podgaetskii 1941: 181); see also Formozov 1965: 112.

143Formozov 1965: 87; Munchaev 1994b: fig. 46: 1–8.

144Rezepkin 1991: 176; Munchaev 1994b: fig. 46: 26–29, 12–16.

145Munchaev 1961: fig. 11.

146Munchaev 1994b: fig. 47: 1–4.