Durham Research Online

Deposited in DRO:

22 March 2010

Version of attached �le:

Published Version

Peer-review status of attached �le:

Peer-reviewed

Citation for published item:

Philip, G. (2007) 'The metalwork of the Carchemish region and the development of grave repertories duringthe third millennium BC.', in Euphrates River Valley settlement : the Carchemish sector in the thirdmillennium BC. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 187-197. Levant supplementary series. (5).

Further information on publisher's website:

http://www.oxbowbooks.com/bookinfo.cfm/ID/80142//Location/Oxbow

Publisher's copyright statement:

Additional information:

Use policy

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, forpersonal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro�t purposes provided that:

• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source

• a link is made to the metadata record in DRO

• the full-text is not changed in any way

The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.

Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.

Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United KingdomTel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 | Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971

http://dro-test.dur.ac.uk

12

The metalwork of the Carchemish region and thedevelopment of grave repertories during the thirdmillennium BC

Graham Philip

Introduction

A considerable quantity of metalwork is nowdocumented from 3rd millennium Be sites inthe Carchemish region. Much of this originatesin burial contexts making it clear that metalartefacts played an important role in the markingof status in mortuary contexts. As the materialwas probably manufactured in the area, it oughtto reflect local pattems of demand, and in recentyears our knowledge has increased to the pointat which it should be possible to determinewhether there existed styles and practices whichwere distinctive to the Carchemish region, orwhether customs documented there simplyreflect a localised version of developments inthe Middle East generally.

However, this investigation can also be setin a wider framework. A growing emphasisupon the use of metal artefacts within graverepertories is documented in many parts of theeast Mediterranean and Middle East during thethird millennium Be (Moorey 1994, 258-259;Muhly 1985, 12J-I34). The key question is,however, to what extent does this represent asingle unified phenomenon? If the data indicatesa similarity of artefact types and modes of usein contemporary societies across the MiddleEast, this would suggest a broad inter-regionalacceptance both of metalwork as a suitablematerial for status marking, and of particularmodes of use. Such a phenomenon would havesignificant implications for the nature, scaleand intensity of inter-regional communication,the development of shared elite ideologies and

so on. On the other hand, the evidence mightindicate that there existed significant inter­regional differences in the typology, chronologyand contextual deployment of metalwork. Inthis case, we would have to think in terms ofthe gradual incorporation of metal artefactswithin a series of divergent, local, socio-politicaland ideological schemes. Furthermore, undersuch circumstances, any evidence for growingconsistency of practice between regions overtime would require a specific explanation.

There is now a sufficiently large body ofcomparative material from sites in SouthernMesopotamia, south~astAnatolia,and the Levantto permit this question to be addressed, at leastin a provisional manner. As an area which cannow offer a large sample of metalwork coveringmost of 3rd millennium Be, the Carchemishregion represents a good starting point forsuch an investigation. This paper thereforeseeks to provide a comparative perspectiveon the metalwork of the Carchemish region,by reviewing the presence andlor absence ofparticular metal-types in different regions, andconsidering the contexts within which differenttypes were deployed. However, before weconsider the extent to which there existed stylesand practices which were distinctive to theCarchemish region during the 3rd millenniumBC, we need to review the evidence for the roleof metalwork in the preceding 4th millenniumBe.

188 Graham Philip

The evidence from the fourth millenniumBC

The Nahal Mishmar hoard from ChalcolithicPalestine (Bar-Adon 1980), which most scholarswould assign to the earlier part of the 4thmillennium BC (Levy and Burton 2001, 1233)provides important evidence. When this group,and the related material from contemporarysettlements in the Southern Levant (Shalevand Northover 1993), is considered along withthe impressive hoard of late 4th millenniummetalwork from Arslantepe VIA (Caneva elal. 1985; Palmieri 1981, 11{}-111), it becomesclear that the rarity of metal artefacts in thearchaeological record of the 4th millennium doesnot imply that a sophisticated metal industry didnot exist at that point. For example, the presenceof a major administrative complex at Arslantepein period VII, dated to the first half of the 4thmillennium BC (Frangipane 2002, 124-126), isindicative of the level of sophistication attainedby late Chalcolithic societies. However, in theabsence of a significant emphasis on metalworkas a grave item during the 4th millennium BC,we are dependent upon occasional hoards toprovide an indication of the kinds of materialwhich were in circulation.

Moreover, the distinctive copper-arsenic­antimony ternary alloy used in the manufactureof the Nahal Mishmar hoard is likely to haveoriginated in the ore deposits of eastern Anatolia(Tadmor et al. 1995), as did the copper workedat Tell esh-Shuna in Jordan in the later 4thmillennium (Rehren et al. 1997), and the varioussilver artefacts which occur in 4th millenniumgraves at Byblos and less frequently at othersites (Philip and Rehren 1996; Philip 2002,219-220; Prag 1978). In light of the foregoing,the quantities of metal available in Uruk-periodSouth Mesopotamia (Moorey 1994, 257), and thestrength of Uruk contacts with the north-west, itappears likely that metal from Anatolian sourceswas being shipped around western Asia insignificant quantities during the 4th millennium.This is despite its relative infrequency in thearchaeological record.

On the whole, significant archaeologicalevidence for metalwork is available only oncemetal artefacts start to playa significant rolein the mortuary record. Graves from PeriodI at Susa, which date somewhere around thetransition between the 5th and 4th millennia

(Tallon 1987, 311-312, fig. 49), have producedrelatively large numbers of copper artefacts,induding flat axes, mirrors and pins, providing aprecocious instance of this practice. The contrastbetween the data from Susa and the much poorerevidence for metalwork from neighbouring LateUbaid South Mesopotamia was highlighted byMoorey (1994, 256), and suggests that metalartefacts were very differently implicated in thesocial practices of the two regions at this point.

To summarize, the evidence suggests thatduring the 4th millennium Be, sophisticatedmetal industries existed in many regions, suppliedby the long-range transport of metal. However,there were also marked differences in the waysin which metal artefacts were incorporatedwithin local ideologies and social practices. Thisbecomes all the more clear when we consider theevidence from the 3rd millennium Be.

Metalwork of the earlier thirdmillennium BC

The Carchemish region

Only recently, as a result of the excavationof an extensive range of material from theBirecik Dam Cemetery, located some 25 kmnorth of Carchemish, has it become possibleto characterise the metalwork of the regionin the early 3rd millennium Be (Squadrone.this volume). The most striking aspect of theearly 3rd millennium (i.e. immediately 'post­Uruk') metalwork is simply the sheer quantityof material present in the graves. According toSquadrone the cemetery can be roughly dividedinto an earlier and later phase. The metal typesmost generally associated with the early phaseare: pins with either conical, grooved, knobbedor zoomorphic heads and decorated shafts(Squadrone, this volume, see Figs 13.1, 13.2)cylindrical pendants, animal figurines (see Fig.13.5), flat axes, and tripartite spear heads (see Fig.13.6). These artefacts, while certainly stylish inappearance, were relatively simple in technicalterms. Production required nothing more thanlidded moulds, the castings from which couldbe finished by hammer-working.

The emphasis upon weapons in the form ofaxes and spearheads is interesting. Both formsemployed considerably more metal than moreornamental artefacts such as pins or pendants

12. The metalwork of the Carchemish region and the development of grave repertories 189

and would have been costly to remove fromcirculation through interment. Thus theirpresencein graves presumably indicates that the equationof weaponry with high status had already beenaccepted within local societies by this point.

Squadrone (this volume) observes that whilethis material has parallels north of the Taurus,it is especially at home within an area runningfrom Carchemish northwards to Hassek Hoyiik.While many of the metal types discussed bySquadrone have good parallels in the cist gravesfrom Carchemish (Carchemish III, 221-222, pI.6Oa, 61c), of particular interest are the parallelswith material from the late 4th millennium hoardascribed to Arslantepe period VIA (Palmieri 1981,109-110, figs 3, 4) and a richly furnished early3rd millennium grave belonging early in periodVIB (Frangipane et al. 2001). The grave goods inthis tomb suggest a particular focus upon metalweapons and ornaments. The former includedtripartite spearheads and several elaborate tangeddaggers with broad medial zone, which werein some cases decorated using a Silver-copperalloy. The range of ornaments encompassed anumber of pins, including forms with multiplespiral-heads, bracelets, hair-rings, head bandsand a few metal vessels. This tomb currentlyrepresents the earliest documented instance ofthe conspicuous consumption of metal artefactsin a funerary context from the region.

One point of note is that most of the materialfrom the Arslantepe grave was not worn on thebody (Frangipane et al. 2001, 109, fig. 6), but wasplaced in the grave, almost in the manner ofa hoard. This may indicate that in elite burialcontexts metalwork was not just associated withthe individual deceased, but was being deployedwithin social strategies organised around themortuary event and which emphasised the visible'consumption'ofquantities of avaluable materialIt is also interesting to note that the axe andspearhead, both of which were weU representedin the Carchemish area (Squadrone, this volume),were to appear regularly in Early Dynastic Periodrepresentational art (Rehm 2003,14--15).

Comparison with the evidence fromMesopotamiaThus far Mesopotamia has produced relativelylittle evidence from the early 3rd millennium BCthat appears closely comparable to that from theCarchemish region. For example, while 19% of the

330 graves from the Jamdat Nasr period cemeteryat Ur produced metalwork, this consisted of asmall number of tools, some ornaments such aspins and a mirror, and a large number of metalvessels, the majori ty of which were made of lead;there were no weapons (Woolley 1955, 104-123).The evidence from Ur is broadly confinned by themetalwork from contemporary Tello, and EarlyDynastic I graves from the Diyala (Delougazet al. 1967, 134--142, table 1; Moorey 1994, 258)which consists mainly of copper pins, mirrors,and sheet metal vessels, and includes only theoccasional flat axe or knife blade. A similaremphasis upon lead vessels is documented atSusa during the Uruk period (Tallon 1987, 318),suggesting the adoption there of practices fromUruk Mesopotamia. Thus both the forms and theactual metals employed in Mesopotamian gravesof the early 3rd millennium differed from thosecurrently documented in the north. Neither thefocus upon vessels, nor the extensive use of leadfind ready parallels in the Carchemish region.

This should come as no surprise, however.Winter (1999, 229) has pointed out that suchvessels may have served quite specific rolesin connection wi th perfonnances undertakenas part of the funerary rites. Seen in that light,the emphasis upon lead vessels in SouthernMesopotamia and Susa (Moorey 1994, 294; Tallon1987,318) should be seen as indicating the spatialextent of the particular funerary beliefs andritual actions within which they played a role.The contrast between the role of metal vessels insouthern funerary assemblages, and the growingemphasis upon a range of weapons and personalornaments in the north, should probably beseen as instances of the different ways in whichmetalwork could be utilised according to therequirements of particular cultural schemes.

It is not yet dear whether the apparent absenceof rich 4th millennium graves from Mesopotamiaresults from a lack of fieldwork or provides anaccurate reflection of the situation. However, itis possible that Uruk period bureaucratic elitesmay have expressed status through means otherthan the conspicuous consumption of goods onburial. Equal1y, it is possible that the growingpower of institutions was such that they wereable to exercise tight control over the circulationof valuable metal within the local economy andwere thus able to restrict its 'leakage' out of thesystem through deposition in graves.

The repertory of flat axes, spears, square-

190 Graham Philip

section chisels, tanged leaf-shaped knife bladesand awls recovered from two 'hoards' at TellGubba VII in the Hamrin (Ii 1989, fig. 12, pIs46-48) might be seen as indicative of the kindsof metalwork which were in circulation inMesopotamia by the early 3rd millennium, andwhich were not entering the grave record to anygreat extent. Admittedly, contemporary gravesfrom Kheit Qasim (Forest 1983, 138) produced acombination of tools and some weapons- chisels,knives, flat axes - although weapons were notcommon within this cemetery. However, it is notclear how far a relatively peripheral zone like theHamrin can be considered to be representativeof South Mesopotamia as a whole.

The evidence from North Mesopotamiaremains limited at present, and is thus difficultto assess, but there is little to suggest the presencethere of significant concentrations of metalworkin early 3rd millennium graves (Bolt and Green2(03). This is consistent with the suggestion thatsocieties in the Ninevite V zone were organizedaround a system of staple, rather than wealthfinance (Schwartz 1994). It therefore pointsto a situation in which modes of expressiondocumented in North Mesopotamia differed fromthose predominant in both South Mesopotamiaand the Euphrates Valley.

To date, neither western Syria, the SouthernLevant, or Cyprus, have yet produced evidencefor the large-scale use of metalwork in burialcontexts of early 3rd millennium date (Philip1989; 18f>-197; 1991; Weinstein-Balthazar 1990).That being the case, it is likely that north-westSyria and south-east Anatolia played a key role inthe early development of the use of metalwork asa status indicator in grave contexts. The presenceof a hoard of high quality metalwork in level VIAat Arslantepe suggests that the concept of suchitems as prestige objects was well establishedin the Malatya area before the end of the 4thmillennium BC, although it may not, at thatpoint, have been specifically associated withmortuary behaviour.

On present evidence it appears that in theearlier 3rd millennium:

1) the range of material present at sites inthe Carchemish region was distinct fromthat appearing in contemporary graves inMesopotamia;

2) the pattern of metal artefact use documentedin the Carchemish region represents a genuine

local development, which draws upon formspresent in the area in the late 4th millennium;and

3) the equation between the conspicuousconsumption of metalwork in graves andthe marking of status had become acceptedin the Carchemish region and areas furtherto the north by c. 3000 Be and so, on presentevidence at least, rather earlier than was tobe the case in South Mesopotamia.

But why should this have been the case? Oneexplanation would see thisasa largely endogenousdevelopment, in that the Carchemish regionwas located relatively close to major coppersources (Palmieri et ai. 1993). Local communitieswould presumably have had a relatively goodawareness of, and access to, metaL Thus the veryaccessibility of metals may have contributed torendering these more suitable for conspiruousdeployment than some other potential materials.As the region lay on the vital route to centresof demand in Mesopotamia and the Levant, wemight suspect that local perceptions as to the'valuable' nature of metalwork would have beeninfluenced by the extent of that demand, andthe efforts which southern communities wereprepared to make to obtain supplies.

However, Frangipane et af. (2001) suggest arather different explanation. Noting the parallelsbetween the metal (and other) items from theArslantepe VIS tomb and material from theTranscaucasia region, they suggest that thepresence of this rich burial indicates an importantchange in the manner in which power wasexercised at the site. They posit a shift from asystem where the exercise of power was basedaround administrative control of the stapleeconomy in the 4th millennium BC, to a system,influenced by the presence of population groupsfrom the east, for whom the consumption ofvaluable artefacts (and the sacrifice of humanbeings), formed a key element in the markingof individual status.

Whatever the specific reasons for this change,the kind of metalwork first documented atArslantepe in the late 4th millennium andpresumably, the associated practices, appear tohave provided the essential ideas and the materialresources for the developments documented inthe Euphrates Valley during the earlier 3rdmillennium.

12. The metalwork of the Carchemish region and the development ofgrave repertories 191

f,,

,,

,

Cit"., I: I. ,. I

n·. -.

f-~.-

• 3- ::-.

2" n\}

i,

1i

- ..U 5, I 4

1

6 7 8

Fig, 12.1. Specimen metalwork from lerablus Tahtani tombs Inot to scale). II spearhead IT 363, T. 302, L.143 mm; 21 pin IT 2288, T. 1687, L. 150 mm; 31 torque IT 2954, T. 2618, L. 173 mm; 41 bracelet IT 2953, T.2618, Diam. 50 mm; 51 tweezers IT 654, T. 302, L. 80 mm; 61 axe IT 281, T. 302, L. 115 mm; 71 dagger bladeIT 449, T. 302, L. 153 mm; 81 dagger blade IT 263, T. 302, L. 208 mm

192 Graham Philip

Metalwork of the later third millenniumBC

The Carchemish region

Squadrone (this volume) suggests that whilesome forms continue from the earlier period,the later graves in the Birecik Dam Cemeteryare characterised by a rather different set ofmetal artefacts of which the following standout: bracelets, torques, and toggle pins in theornament category and poker butt (i.e. simplebipartite) spear heads which become increasinglycommon among the weapons. One feature notedat this point is the appearance of spearheads witha bent tang (Fig. 12.1, see Philip 1989, types 5 and8). This is best understood as an evolution of thestraight tang, and represents a particular modeof hafting which was widely adopted in parts ofAnatolia, Cyprus and the coastal and SouthernLevant during the later 3rd millennium Be. Ithas not, however, been much reported fromMesopotamia and so is best seen as an elementof a northern metalworking industry. Many ofthese forms are also characteristic of the later 3rdmillennium graves at J~rablus Tahtani.

OrnamentsThe most numerous class of artefacts is toggle­pins, of which the form with hemisphericalhead is particularly frequent (Fig. 12.1.2). Thegraves from Jerablus Tahtani (and other sites,see Klein 1992, 256) provide many instances oftoggle-pins positioned in the region of the neckor shoulder where they presumably functionedto fasten a shroud. Also increasingly commonat this point are metal torques with curledends (Fig. 12.1.3). A number of examples havebeen reported from the Birecik Dam Cemetery(Squadrone, this volume), which suggests thatthe type begins some time before the middle ofthe 3rd millennium, while examples in silverare documented at Jerablus Tahtani, at the neckof a female burial in a rich EB IV grave at TellUmm el-Marra (Schwartz et al. 2003, 333, fig. 17),Tell Selenkahiye (van Loon 1968, 27), and TellBanat Tomb 9 (Porter 2002, 21). Copper instancesappear at Jerablus Tahtani, in late 3rd millenniumgraves at Tell Bi'a (Strommenger and Kohlmeyer1998, 12, taf. 20.8, and 31, taf. 36.6), and from'Hammam' (Woolley 1914, 91, pI. 21c). These aresuffidently common in the Carchemish area to be

seen as a characteristic feature of local regionalmetalworking traditions. Graves from the regionhave also produced a significant number of metalbracelets (Fig. 12.1.4). These appear in a range ofsizes suggesting that some were designed for usein child burials. Also present are spiral ear-rings,often made in sitver.

Another innovation of the later 3rd millenniumis the appearance of small tweezers made froma single piece of copper-alloy folded into simpleU-shape (Fig. 12.1.5). In addition to an examplefrom Jerablus Tahtani Tomb 302, instancesare documented at several EB IV tombs in theEuphrates Valley (Porter 1995, 23, table 1, fig. 7.A.386;Orthmann 1981,57, pI. 71.9). Tweezers appearto have been restricted to high-status burials andalmost certainly represent personal groomingequipment. The appearance of similar tweezersin late 3rd millennium graves on both Crete andCyprus (Branigan 1974,32; Calling 1964, 228;Weinstein-Balthazar 1990, 384) is probably bestunderstood in the context of the appropriationof elements of Syrian elite material culture bysocieties in the east Mediterranean basin.

Weapons

Taking the material from Jerablus as an example,the first point to note is that the rich Tomb 302contains the most striking artefacts. Flat axeshave now been replaced by shaft hole forms (Fig.12.1.6). This is more than just a stylistic changeas it reflects a shift from an artefact which couldfunction as either a tool or a weapon, to a fonnthat was designed purely for fighting, and whichwas produced using a particular technology, thetwo-piece mould. It is probably no coincidencethat it is around the middle of the 3rd millenniumthat the axe became a major element in elite maleburials across the Middle East, with increasinglymore elaborate fonns being developed until itsfinal disappearance late in the Middle BronzeAge (Philip 1995).

In contrast, the large tripartite spearheads aresuperseded by simple square-sectioned examples,often secured using a hooked-tang (Fig. 12.1.1).The latter were probably easier to produce, andtheir simplidty may reflect a relative decline intheir status value, perhaps concomitant with thegrowing elaboration of the axe. Daggers occur,but these mainly consist of simple small rivetedblades (Fig. 12.1.7). However, the presence of adagger blade bearing ribbed decoration (Fig.

12. The metalwork of tire Carchemish region and the development of grave repertories 193

12.1.8) which has a good parallel at Umm el­Marra (Schwartz et al. 2003, 334, fig. 21) appearsto foreshadow developments generally seen astypical of the Middle Bronze Age. Like the axes,the production of such daggers also requiredtwo-piece moulds, a technical innovation whichallowed the consistent output of relativelyelaborate forms, while offering the potential forlarge scale production. This situation speaks ofa developing integration between artefact style,artefact symbolism and artefact production.

On present evidence, a similar range ofmaterial occurs within an area running from TellMardikh eastwards to Mari on the Euphrates andnorthwards along both banks of the river towardsCarchemish. That said, no torques have yet beenreported from Mari (Jean-Marie 1999, 6, 9-10).It is interesting to note that a Significant part ofthe growing quantity of metalwork appearingin mid-late 3rd millennium grave contextsconsists of dress ornaments, high visibilityitems designed to be worn on the person in aconspicuous manner - torques, pins, bracelets etc.Tweezers too with their association with personalgrooming might also be regarded as a componentof 'the appropriate presentation of the self. Thissituation is made all the more interesting bythe limited range of forms taken. In essence, bythe later 3rd millennium a stereotyped range ofmetal artefacts had become accepted over a largepart of north·west Syria, as fulfilling expectationsregarding the appropriate representation of theindividual in funerary contexts.

Comparison with the evidence fromMesopotamia

The Mesopotamian material, as exemplifiedby the Royal Cemetery at Ur, demonstratesa number of differences from that describedabove. In the graves of the Early Dynastic period(Pollock 1985, 168-188) bracelets are rare, torquesabsent, and while toggle-pins are numerous,most confonn to the type with a globular head,with versions with both a straight and bent shaftcommon (Woolley 1934, Types 1 and 7). Whilebracelets are a little more frequent in graves ofthe Akkadian period, torques continue to beabsent, while toggle-pins with a hemisphericalhead, the dominant form in north-west Syria,remain infrequent (Pollock 1985, 231). In contrastto the situation in the Euphrates Valley, metal

vessels are common (Miiller-Karpe: 1993). Thus,while there exist broad parallels between therepertories of personal ornaments occurring inMesopotamia and Euphrates valley, there aremany specific differences.

The mortuary evidence for weapons in gravecontexts from Southern Mesopotamia has beensummarized by Moorey (1994, 258-259), andmore recently by Rehm (2003). It is dear fromthese studies that with the exception of the 'cartburials' from Kish there is very limited evidencefor the large-scale indusion of weapons in gravesbefore ED 1II. Both the Kish graves and the RoyalCemetery at Ur produced weapons in largernumbers and more elaborate styles than occurin earlier tombs. These include shaft-hole axesand high quality daggers as well as a significantquantity of tools, copper vessels and zoomorphicrein rings. While this material echoes thatoccurring in the contemporary Euphrates Valley,numerous differences in detail remain. As faras weapons are concerned, for example, themajority of the socketed axes from Ur conformto Woolley's Type A3 with a lobed blade, andare thus distinct from the forms characteristicof north-west Syria (Philip 1989, 63-M).

Taking the evidence of ornaments, vessels andweapons together, we can make the followingobservations:

1) the practice of depositing metalwork ingraves appears to have had a rather greaterantiquity in north-western Syria than inMesopotamia;

2) there are significant differences in the usageof metalwork in grave contexts in the tworegions in the earlier 3rd millennium;

3) by the middle of the 3rd millennium thepreviously distinctive metalwork of theCarchemish area had become subsumedwithin a fairly homogeneous range of metaltypes which had come to dominate thefunerary assemblages of a large part of north­west Syria and the Euphrates Valley; and

4) there is evidence to suggest a degree ofconvergence between the grave metalworkof Mesopotamia and that of the EuphratesValley by the middle of the 3rd millennium.although a number of very clear distinctionsremained.

The deployment 0/ metAlworkWhile ornaments occur in many tombs in the

194 Graham Philip

Euphrates Valley (Montero FeneliDs 1999-2(00),a few graves contain a number of weapons thatis well in excess of that required to constitute apersonal set. Such concentrations of weaponstend to appear in the larger and richer tombs suchas lerablus Tahtani Tomb 302 and the Hypogeumat Tell Ahmar (Thureau-Dangin and Dunand1936). According to Peltenburg (1999, 432-433) thisrepresents post-mortuary activity. concerned withthe making of periodic offerings to the ancestors.There are both documentary and archaeologicalindications of the existence of a royal ancestorcult at Tell MardikhiEbla (Archi 2(01). In contrast,in the Royal Cemetery at Uri when weaponswere present in a grave they usually occurredin direct association with a particular individual(Pollock 1985, 179, 1991, 376) and are thereforebest understood as personal items.

Discussion

The metalwork found in the Carchemish areaduring the early 3rd millennium Be constitutesa distinctive regional assemblage. On presentevidence, this was markedly different fromthat documented from contemporary SouthernMesopotamia. Aspects of this repertory appearto have been derived from forms in productionin more northerly regions during the later 4thmillennium Be. However, it is not yet possibleto determine to what extent the metal styles(and perhaps the associated social practices)reflect connections with Transcaucasia, or weredeveloped locally in the context of a period ofrapid social and economic change at least partly­fuelled by contacts with the Mesopotamian Urukworld.

By the middle of the 3rd millennium significantchanges can be detected within the repertoryof metal types. These include the increasinglyfrequent appearance of elements drawn froma standardized range of personal ornaments(pins, bracelets, torques and less commonlytweezers), all of which appear to be focusedupon physical appearance and the presentationof the body. There are also a number of changesto the repertory of weapons, including a movetowards rather morc distinctive and elaborateforms of axe and dagger and simpler versionsof the spearhead, perhaps reflecting changes inthe relative status value of such items.

The key to the appearance and rapid spreadof this standardized material lies in recent

documentary evidence from TeU MardikhiEblawhich indicates that specific types of metalartefact were given to high status individuals, asindicators of rank at important points in their lives(Archi 2002,161). Burial was one such event. Ourconcern here is less with the exact items given tospecific individuals but rather the general rangeof material employed in such transactions. Formen the list of suitable items included garments,and belts and daggers decorated in preciousmetals (Archi 2002, 181). For high stalus womenthe lists include earrings, beads, hair-ornamentsincluding gold and silver head bands, necklaces,jewellery, silver toggle-pins (often in pairs) andbracelets, again alongside garments. Both sexescould be provided with torques. Archi (2002,179) stresses that these artefacts were not thepersonal belongings of the deceased, but wereissued by the central administration, as deemedappropriate to the status of the individualconcerned.

This new range of metalwork indicatesthat we are dealing with a world of stylised,choreographed elite behaviour. The high degreeof intra· regional standardisation reflects thecrystallisation of a distinctive regional metalrepertory and can be explained by the existenceof regular communication between politiesin Northern Syria. For example, some of thehigh status women from Ebla listed in the textsdiscussed by Archi (2002) were destined tomarry men from towns such as Nagar (identifiedwith Tell Brak), and Harran. Contacts of thissort would surely have facilitated the rapidinterchange of fashions, styles and modes ofbehaviour. Moreover, the various forms ofdiplomatic contact and exchange between elitesdocumented in texts from Ebla and Tell Seydar(e.g. Archi 1998) would have helped to createa degree of shared symbolism and practices ofelite representation in Syria around the middleof the 3rd millennium.

The other side of the growing demand formetal products is represented by the harnessingof metallurgical production to the needs ofthe elite by the employment of attached craft­specialists working directly for the palace (seeMazzoni 2003). The stability and support soprovided would have encouraged technologicalinnovation, such as the development of two­piece moulds which allowed the repeat castingof more elaborate forms while also providingcraft workers with a reliable source of demand

12. The metalwork of the Carchemish r(gion and the droelopment ofgrave repertories 195

for their products and a degree of security ofraw material supplies.

Clearly the number of graves containingmetalwork suggests that the desire to deploymaterial of this sort extended some way beyondthe elite. In fact, the presence ofhighly stereotypedcopper-alloy material in many graves should beseen as reflecting a desire by other members ofthese communities to emulate elite behaviour,including aspects of their mortuary practices,and a corresponding effort by metalworkers toproduce a range of material designed to satisfythat demand.

We can now return to the question set out at thebeginning of this article. Recent data suggests thatthere was a genuine difference in the manner inwhich metalwork was deployed in Mesopotamiaand the Carchernish region in the earlier 3rdmillennium. At least some of these differences arelikely to reflect the contrasting fonns of politicaleconomy and modes of representing 'elite'status which had developed in the two regions.While developments in the two areas appear tohave started from rather different points, theappearance of a number of broad structuralparallels between the funerary metalwork fromthe Euphrates Valley and that of Mesopotamia bythe second half of the 3rd millennium, suggeststhat there existed a degree of convergence inthe ways in which such material was employed.That said, there remain sufficient differences inboth specific typology and elements of practiceto indicate that communities in both areas werecontinuing to use metalwork in distinctive, ifperhaps gradually converging ways. In contrast,by the later 3rd millennium there appears to havedeveloped a marked similarity of practice withinmuch of Syria, presumably indicative of intra­regional political and economic relationshipsthat were far closer and more regular than werecommunications with Mesopotamia.

References

Archi, A. 19981he regional slate of Nagar according to the texts ofEbla.ln M. Lebeau (ed.)About Subartu. Studits drootedto Uppn' M~tamia. Subartu 4/1, 1-16. Tumhout,Brepols.

Archi, A. 2001The king lists from Ebla. In T. I. Abusch. W. W. Halloand t. Winter (eds) Historiography in tM Cuntifimn

World, 1-13. Proceedings of the XLV RencontreAssyriologique. Bethesda, COL Press.

Archi, A. 2002Jewels for the ladies of Ebla. Zeitschrift fUr Assyriologi~

92, 161-199.

Bar·Adon. P. 1980Th~ Urotofthe Treasure: Thefindsfrom the caves in NalullMishmar. jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society.

Bolt, D. and A. Green 2003The burial of the dead. In E. Rova and H. Weiss (oos)The origins ofNorth Mesopotamian civiliZAtion: Ninroite5 chronology. economy. society. Subartu 9, 519-562.Tumhout, Brepols.

Branigan. K. 1974Aegean mdalwork of the Early and Middl~ Bronu Age.Oxford, Clarendon Press.

Caneva, C. M. Frangipane and A. M. Palmieri 1985I metalli di Arslantepe nel quadro dei piu antich.isViluppi della metallurgicia vicino-orientale. Scavi ericerche archeologiche degli anni 1976-1979, Rome,Consiglia Nazionale dell ricerche. Quaderni de l.Aricerca scientifica 112, 115-134.

Catling, H. w. 1964Cypriot bronuwork in the Mycenaean world. Oxford,Clarendon Press.

Delougaz, P., H. D. Hill, and S. lloyd 1%7Private houses and gratJfs in tire Diyala Region. OrientalInstitute Publications 88. Chicago, University ofChicago.

Forest, j .• O. 1983lLs practiqufs funhaires en Misopotamie du cinqibnemillh-rai" au debut du troiseme: etude du CQS. Bibliothequede la Delegation archeologique fran~aise en Iraq: no.2, Travaux du Centre de recherche d'archrologieorientale. Universite de Paris I: no. 3. Paris, EditionsRecherches sur les dvilisations.

Frangipane, M., G. M. Oi Nocera. A. Hauptmann. P.Morbidelli, A. Palmieri, L Sadon, M. Schultz and T.Schmidt-Schultz 2001New symbols oC a new power in a "royal" tomb from3000 BC Arslantepe, Malatya (Turkey). Palrorirnt 27,105-139.

Frangipane. M. 2002'Non-Uruk' developments and Uruk-linkOO featureson the northem borders of greater Mesopotamia. InJ. N. Postgate (ed.) Artefacts of rompluity: Trackingthe Uruk in the Near EJJst, 123-148. British School of

196 Graham Philip

Archaeology in Iraq, Archaeological Reports Volume5. Warminster, Ads and Phillips.

Ii, H. 1989Finds from Tell Gubba. A/-Rajidain 10, 167-244.

Jean-Marie, M. 1999Tombes et necropoles de Mari. Mission Archrologiquede MaTi Tome V. Bibliotheque archeologique ethistorique 153. Beruit, Institut fran,ais d'archeologiedu Proche-Orient.

Klein. H. 1992U11fersIlchungen zllr Typologie bronzeitliclie Nadel inMcsopotamien lind Syrien. Saarbriicken, SaarbriickerDruckerei und Verlag.

Levy, T. E. and M. Burton 2001The Chalcolithic radiocarbon record and its use insouthern Levantine archaeology. Radiocarbon 43/3,1223-1246.

Mazzoni, S. 2003Ebla: crafts and power in an emergent state ofthird millennium Be Syria. Journal of Mediterra11ennArchaeology 16, 173-191.

Montero Fene1l6s, J.-L. 1999-2000Metales para la muerte. Costumbres funerarias en laAlta Mesopotamica durante el III milenio a.c. AulaOrienta/is 17-18, 407-419.

Moorey, P. R. S. 1994Ancient Mesopotamian materials and industries. Oxford,Clarendon Press.

Muhly, J. D. 1985Beyond Typology: Aegean metallurgy in its historicalcontext. In C. Wilkie and W. D. E. Coulson (eds)Contributions to Aegean Archaeology: studies presentedto William A. McDollald, 109-141. Minneapolis, Centrefor Ancient ShJdies, University of Minnesota.

Muller-Karpe, M. 1993Metal1gefiisse im Iraq I: (Von den Angiingen bis zurAkkad-ZeitJ. Prahistorische Bronzefunde. Abt. 2; Bd.14. ShJttgart, Steiner.

Orthmann, W. 1981Halawa 1977 bis 1979. Verliiufiger Berieht uber dieIbis 3. Grabungskampagne. Saarbrucker Beitrage 2urAltertumskunde 31. Bonn, Habelt.

Palmieri, A. 1981Excavations at Arslantepe (Malatya). Anatolian Studies31,101-119.

Palmieri, A., K. Sertok and E. Chemykh 1993From Arslantepe metalwork to arsenical coppermetallurgy in Anatolia. In M, Frangipane, H.Hauptmann, M. Liverani, P. Matthiae and M. Mellink(eds) Between the rivers and over the mountains, 573-600.Rome, Universita di Roma 'La Sapienza'.

Peltenburg, E. 1999The living and the ancestors: Early Bronze AgemorhJary practices at Jerablus Tahtani. In TishrinDam, 427-442.

Philip, G. 1989Metal weapotls oftile Ear/yand Middle Bronu Ages in Syria­Palestine. British Archaeological Reports InternationalSeries 526. Oxford, British Archaeological Reports.

Philip, G. 1991Cypriot bronze work in the Levantine world:conservatism, innovation and social change. Journalof Mediterra'lean Archaeology 4,59-108.

Philip, G. 1995Warrior burials in the Ancient Near Eastern BronzeAge: the evidence from Mesopotamia, Western Iranand Syria-Palestine. In A. C. Green and S. Campbell(eds) The archaeology ofdeath i" tile Ancient Near East,140-154. Oxford, Oxbow.

Philip, G. 2()()2Contacts between the 'Uruk' World and the Levantduring the fourth millennium BC: evidence andinterpretation. In J. N. Postgate (ed.) Artefacts ofcomplexity. Tracking the Uruk i" the Near East, 207-235.Warminster, Aris and Phillips.

Philip, G. and Rehren T. 1996Fourth millennium BC silver from Tell esh-Shuna,Jordan: archaeometallurgical investigation and somethoughts on ceramic skeuomorphs. Oxford Ioumal ofArchaeology 15, 129-150.

Pollock, S, 1985The symbolism of prestige: archaeological eramples fromthe Royal Cemetery at Ur. PhD thesis, Department ofAnthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.UniverSity Microfilms.

Pollock,S. 1991Women in a man's world: Images of Sumerian women.In J. M. Cero and M. W. Conkey (eds) EngenderingArchaeology, 366-387. Oxford, Blackwell.

Porter, A. 2002Thedynamics ofdeath in third millennium Syria. Bulletinofthe Amerialn Schools ofOriental &search 325, 1-36.

12. The metalwork of the Carchemish regiorl and the development ofgrave repertories 197

Porter, A. 1995Tell Banat - Tomb 1. Damaszener Mitteilungen 8,I-SO.

PTag, K. 1978Silver in the Levant in the fourth millennium B.C InP. R. S. Moorey and P. J. Parr (eds) Arc1weology in theLevant: essays for Katllleen Kenyon, 36-45. Warminster,Aris and Phillips.

Rehm, E. 2003Waffengriiber im Alten Orient. Zum Problem derWertung von Waffen in Griibern des 3. und friihtn 2.lahrtauSt'nds v. Chr. in Mesopotamien und Syrien. BritishArchaeological Reports Intemational Series 1191.Oxford, Archaeopress.

Rehren, T., K. Hess and G. Philip 1997Fourth millennium Be copper metallurgy in northemJordan: the evidence from Tell esh~Shuna. In H.­G. Gebel, Z. Kafafi, and G. O. Rollefson (eds) Theprehistory of Jordan, 11. Perspectives from 1997, 625-640.Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence,and Environment 4. Berlin, ex oriente.

Schwartz, G. M. 1994Rural economic specialization and early urbanizationin the Khabur Valley, Syria. In G. M. Schwartz and S. E.Falconer (eds) Archaeological viewsfrom the countryside.Village communities itl early complex societies, 19-36.Washington, Smithsonian Institution Press.

Schwartz, G., H. Curvers, S. Dunham and B. Stuart2003A third-millennium B.C elite tomb and other newevidence from Tell Umm el~Marra, Syria. American10url1al of Archaeology 107,32S-362.

Shalev, S. and P. J. Northover 1993The metallurgy of the Nahal Mishmar hoardreconsidered. Archaeometry 35, 35-47.

Strommenger, E. and K. Kohlmeyer 1998Tefl Bi'alTuttul I. Die Altorientafische Bestattungen.Wissenschaftliche Veroffentlichung der DeutschenOrient-Gesellschaft 96. Saarbriicken, SaarbriickerDruckerei und Verlag.

Tadmor, M., D. Kedem, F. Begemann, A. Hauptmann,E. Pemicka and S. Schmitt-Strecker 1995The Nahal Mishmar hoard from the Judean Desert:technology, composition, and provenance. Atiqot 27,95-148.

Tallon, F. 1987Metallurgie susienne 1 et 11. De la fondation de SUSl'au XVIlIe siec1e avant J.-c. Notes et Documents demusees de France, 15. Paris, Editions de la Reuniondes musees nationaux.

Thureau~Dangin,F. and M. Dunand 1936Tjf~Barsib. Paris, Librairie Orientaliste PaulGeuthner.

van Loon, M. 1968First results of the 1967excavations at Tell Selenkahiye.Annales Archeologiques Arabes Syriemlts 18, 21-32.

Weinstein~Balthazar, J. W. 1990Copper and bronze working in Earl]! tllrough MiddleBronze Age Cyprus. Jonsered, Paul Astroms forlag.

Winter, I. 1999Reading ritual in the archaeological record: depositionpattem and function of two artifact types from theRoyal Cemetery of Ur. In H. Kiihne, R. 8embcck undK.Bartl (eds) F/uchtpunkt Uruk: archiiologischt Einheitaus methodischer Viei/alt: Schriften fUr Hans liirg Nissen,229-256.lntemationale Archaologie. Studia honorariaBd. 6. RahdenfWestf. M. Leidorf.

Woolley, C. L 1914Hittite burial customs. Liverpool Annals ofArchaeologya"d Anthropology 6, 87-98.

Woolley, C L 1934Ur Excavations II: The Royal Cemetery. London, BritishMuseum.

Woolley, C. L. 1955Ur Excavations IV: TIle Early Periods. London, BritishMuseum.