Cyprus

Finally, we should note the eight complete horseshoe-shaped hearths (or hobs) and many fragments found across the sea at Marki Alonia, in Cyprus, which points to some form of interaction between Levantine groups and the island.47

CHRONOLOGY, PERIODISATION, AND THE PROBLEM OF

TRANSFORMATIONS

The separate developmental stages of the Kura-Araxes tradition and its regional relationships continue to bedevil.Whereas other periods of the Caucasus present similar challenges, those of the Kura-Araxes are seemingly more acute. In a recent study, I outlined the main problems, which include the ever-present scarcity of radiocarbon dates for sites scattered so far apart, inconsistencies in ceramic typologies (still the backbone of Kura-Araxes schemes), and conflicting and ambiguous nomenclature.48 The many developmental schemes show that accord has not been reached on how the tradition should be sliced up.49 This uncertainty has its roots in different research methodologies, as well as the degree to which the Kura-Araxes tradition can be reconciled with the far better dated complexes of the Near East.

It would be otiose to repeat the problematic details here, suffice to say that a few points need to be underscored. The first concerns socio-cultural transformations – the transitions between phases or periods – and how these are expressed in the material culture. Many studies on the Kura-Araxes have an implicit evolutionary assumption; namely, that developments over a millennium or so occurred in a linear fashion more or less simultaneously over its vast territory.50 These shifts are seen as discrete incremental units, or periods of stability (phases), that were ruptured by interludes of change. In reality, adjustments in social systems, like all complex systems, do not occur at the same rate everywhere. Episodes of rapid transformation can alternate with periods of little change, and variation between regions can differ markedly, owing to local circumstances.This approach stems from theTheory of Complex Systems, which maintains most social systems are potentially unstable in so far as they are dynamic entities affected by a range of processes at different levels – individual, group, and institutional.51 It also assumes that social systems are inherently

47Frankel and Webb 2006: 17–21, pl. 9. Based on a few horned fragments from Late Chalcolithic Can Hasan and a single piece from Bağbaşı, the authors raise the possibility of an independent origin in south-west or central Anatolia. Stylistically, however, the Marki Alonia hobs are a much closer fit to the andirons from the Amuq and east Anatolia, where they are ubiquitous.

48Sagona 2014a.

49For example, Sagona 1984: 15–18, table 1; Palumbi 2008: 12–16, table 1.1.

50For an overview of theoretical constructs see, Rothman 2016.

51Van der Leeuw and McClade 1997.

flexible, able to adapt to internal changes as well as fluctuations in the environment.This non-linear model is worthwhile to keep in mind, as it offers some insights on how the spatially extensive Kura-Araxes grew and evolved.

The birth, rise, and fall of the Kura-Araxes, roughly comparable to its oft-cited developmental phases I–III, each have specific matters that have attracted attention.The culture’s seemingly abrupt detachment from the earlier Chalcolithic around 3500/3400 BC continues to preoccupy the authors of studies on the Kura-Araxes genesis, though the excavators at Ovçular Tepe would argue for a period of coexistence in the late fifth millennium BC.52 In this book, I have equated the Kura-Araxes with the Early Bronze Age, bearing in mind that one is not a default term for the other. In this regard, we must be clear on the difficulties in reconciling the south Caucasian sequence with those elsewhere.53 The nub of the problem concerns the continued use of archaeological periodisations developed in the nineteenth century that no longer reflect their original European technological narratives.

For some, the emergence of the Kura-Araxes at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age is inextricably connected to innovations in metallurgy and metalworking.54 Isolating metalworking as the driving factor behind the development of the Kura-Araxes complex is perhaps overstating the case for several reasons, not least of which is the scarcity of early Kura-Araxes metal items and the lack of novel metalworking technologies.55 Instead, it is the transformative social and cultural dynamics that warrant the attribution Early Bronze Age. In any case, the application of these early techno-chronological constructs, which were formulated in nineteenth century Europe to order major developmental phases, poses challenges in geographically diverse regions.

When we compare the southern Caucasus with the Anatolian Upper Euphrates region, for instance, we encounter a curious terminological ‘fault line’. On the one side, we have the Kura-Araxes initiating an ‘Early Bronze Age’ lifestyle in the southern Caucasus around 3500/3400 BC.Across the line, their distant but coeval neighbours in the socially complex Upper Euphrates region, whose relations with the early state systems of the Mesopotamian world ensure they are locked into a well-integrated framework, are placed in the ‘Late Chalcolithic’.56 This is not the only instance of terminological confusion. A glance at some recent cultural schemes for the Caucasus, Anatolia, and Iran indicates that the chronological interface between the end of the Chalcolithic and the beginning of the Early Bronze Age varies considerably

52Marro et al. 2014. For a critique see, Palumbi and Chataigner 2014, and a rebuttal (Marro et al. 2015).

53Sagona 2014.

54Kohl 2007 following Chernykh 1992.

55Sagona 2014: 25–6; Gambashidze et al. 2010; Palumbi 2016: 26.

56Rothman 2001.

from 3500 BC to as low as 2900 BC.57 Clearly, differentiated stratigraphies, dated precisely and objectively through radiocarbon analysis,is the way forward. Periodisation is convenient, but we must keep in mind that it is simply a heuristic device, which categorises and makes manageable the study of a large and complex body of data. In any case, we must remember that ‘Kura-Araxes’ is the cultural flip-side of the term Early Bronze Age.

Expansion is the main theme of the ‘rise’ of the Kura-Araxes. Starting about 3000/2900 BC, its cultural province extended to its furthest extremities.This is also the period of highest regionalism. Architecture, like burials, shows considerable diversity, and red-black ceramics reach a peak in quality and quantity, and display regionally specific sets of elements, especially ornamentation.58 Communities in north-western Iran, for instance, preferred totally black or grey burnished containers decorated with excised designs highlighted with a white paste. Even the addition of grog sets this assemblage apart.59 The nature of this Kura-Araxes expansion has been a major preoccupation and will be dealt with further: migrations, emulation, transfer of ideas, hybridisation, and several other concepts have sought to explain the movement out of the homeland.

Gradual fragmentation,uneven across the territories,characterises the‘fall’of the Kura-Araxes tradition.The abandonment of villages and the appearance of novel elements, including advances in metallurgy and the adoption of barrow burials, often grouped into the rubric ‘Early Kurgans’ are the main concerns. As for the final stages of the Early Bronze Age, considerable confusion still surrounds the terms ‘late Kura-Araxes’, ‘early-Trialeti’, and ‘Martkopi’. Some questions remain, such as, for instance, what attributes, exactly, define Martkopi ceramics and how they differ from early-Trialeti drive current research.These and other issues will be dealt with later in this chapter.

Presently, two broad developmental schemes have been proposed for the period 3500–2400 BC. One, the conventional view, refined and articulated by Giulio Palumbi, argues for a tripartite sequence (Kura-Araxes I–III).60 The other, maintained by Ruben Badalyan and based on the Armenian sequence, argues for a twofold periodisation represented by three groups (KuraAraxes I: Elar-Aragats group; Kura-Araxes II: Karnut-Shengavit and ShreshMokhrablur groups).61 Most recently Palumbi appears persuaded by this twofold scheme.62 Even though more contextual information and radiocarbon

57Lyonnet 2007a: 13; Steadman and McMahon 2011; Petrie 2013: 5; Potts 2013; Bolger et al. 2014.

58Rarely is Kura-Araxes pottery painted, Shanshashvili 2013.

59Mason and Cooper 1999.

60Palumbi 2008, table 2.1.

61Badalyan 2014.

62Palumbi 2016.

readings are required to determine precisely the developmental sequence, the broad cultural trends are already evident.

Chronometric dates are scarce for the nascent phase, with most of the earliest clustering around 3300/3350 BC. Nevertheless, working back from the end of the Chalcolithic, and given the handful of dates preceding this cluster, we can postulate a change around 3500 BC, or possibly later.The cultural discontinuity in the mid-fourth millennium between the Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age is manifested in ceramics, settlement types, and domestic features such as hearths.The social and cultural processes responsible for this shift are not altogether clear, except to say that the innovations in the mid-fourth millennium emerged from a milieu that witnessed a considerable amount of cultural interplay. From the Chalcolithic mix of Syro-Mesopotamian and local elements emerged a series of novel traits that developed into the key elements of the Kura-Araxes cultural package.Around 3300 BC the homeland of the Kura-Araxes witnessed an increase in settlement numbers that reflects expansion and change, albeit subtle, in crafts such as pottery.Amongst these developments is a shift after 3300 BC from pale brown ceramics to vessels with black-and-red surfaces.

In these earliest centuries, Kura-Araxes communities continued the former Chalcolithic practice of exploiting a wide range of environments, though environmental changes around the mid-fourth millennium provided them with a broader choice of subsistence strategies, extending into the highest altitudes.63 Although we have no firm evidence on economic matters for this earliest stage, evidence is mounting from the subsequent phase that we are dealing primarily with groups of farmers who cultivated cereals and kept domesticated stock.64 Settlements are peppered across the central part of the southern Caucasus, reaching from Shida Kartli to northern Armenia and western Azerbaijan.That we have evidence of early occupation in the lowest deposits at Sos Höyük in the Pasliner Plain of eastern Anatolia indicates that this region probably formed the western boundary of the early culture province.

A few generations after the pioneering groups had become established in the southern Caucasus and in a few outposts beyond, communities began to place much emphasis on a self-conscious definition of the group through the formalisation of the cultural package. This move towards a common identity brought with it increasing diversity, especially evident in architecture that displays regional tastes. When this occurred is a moot point. I have placed it around 3300 BC, because that is when we see an expansion of settlements and the first appearance in the southern Caucasus of true black and red ceramics, which became the hallmark of the tradition.65 It would not surprise, however,

63Connor and Sagona 2007; Connor and Kvavadze 2014. See also Joannin et al. 2014 on the drier phase experienced during the Chalcolithic.

64Hovsepyan 2010; Kakhiani et al. 2013; Longford et al. 2009; Piro 2009.

65Palumbi 2008; Sagona 1984. On the symbolism of the colours see, Greenberg 2007.