(originally published in: (1994) XV Kazi Sonuclar Toplantisi. Pp. 131-152. Ankara: Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Culture, General Directorate of Monuments and Museums.)
HACINEBI EXCAVATIONS, 1992
Gil J. Stein and Adnan Misir
INTRODUCTION
The first field season of the Joint Northwestern University - Sanliurfa Museum rescue excavations at Hacinebi Tepe was conducted from August 10-Sept. 7, 1992, with funding from the National Geographic Society (grant # 4853-92) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (grant # RO-22448). Co-directors of the project were Gil Stein (Northwestern University) and Adnan Misir (Turkish Ministry of Culture - Sanliurfa Museum). We wish to thank Dr. Engin Özgen, Director-General of the Turkish Ministry of Culture, General Directorate of Monuments and Museums, for permission to undertake this research. Field staff for the 1992 season were: Ahmet Ayhan (Istanbul University), Cheryl Coursey (SUNY-Binghamton), Hamza Güllüce (Sanliurfa Museum), Alan Lupton (Cambridge University), and Jill Weber (Northwestern University).
BACKGROUND AND PROJECT GOALS
A major issue in studying the origins of civilizations concerns the extent to which the rise of the earliest urbanized state societies affected the development of neighboring, less advanced areas. In Mesopotamia, the emergence of the first city states in the Uruk period (the fourth millennium BC) led to a process of aggressive commercial expansion into neighboring areas of the Zagros mountains (Iran), Syria, and southeast Anatolia (Algaze 1989). Recent research in these areas has located several Late Uruk settlements, apparently established to control trade while extracting vital raw materials, in the world's earliest known colonial system (Surenhagen 1986).
The Hacinebi excavations investigate the effects of Late Uruk Mesopotamian commercial expansion on local Anatolian cultures from 3500-3000 BC. Researchers have often assumed that Mesopotamian long distance trade and colonization led to the emergence of complex societies in the resource-rich, but relatively underdeveloped regions of southeast Anatolia. Although Uruk colonies in Syria and Anatolia have been excavated (e.g. Strommenger 1980, Behm-Blancke 1981, Van Driel and Van Driel Murray 1983), we know almost nothing about the impact of this inter-regional trade system on the political, social, and economic systems of the indigenous cultures in southeast Anatolia (Stein 1990, Wattenmaker 1990). Hacinebi is the ideal site to elucidate this problem, since it is an indigenous settlement, strategically located near the Uruk enclaves on the Euphrates river trade route, and shows clear signs of contact with Mesopotamia during the Late Chalcolithic period (ca. 3500-3000 BC). By clarifying relations between local communities and the Mesopotamian Uruk colonies, the Hacinebi data can contribute to our understanding of core-periphery relations in early Near Eastern complex societies.
Hacinebi is a 3.3 ha. low mounded site located on the bluffs overlooking the east bank of the Euphrates river in Sanliurfa province, southeast Turkey (figure 1). The site lies near the head of the main north-south riverine trade route linking Mesopotamia and Anatolia (Great Britain 1916); it also occupies a strategic location on what has historically been the major east-west river crossing point at Birecik (Dilleman 1962; Oates 1968; Wagner 1976). The mound of Hacimebi is situated on an easily defensible east-west oriented spur which drops down steeply to the river river on west, and into deep canyons to north and south. The Tigris-Euphrates survey project conducted by Guillermo Algaze first discovered Hacinebi and identified its main occupation as Late Chalcolithic, comprising both local southeast Anatolian Amuq F/G (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960) and South Mesopotamian Uruk ceramic forms (Algaze et al. 1991). The only post-Chalcolithic ceramics noted at Hacinebi were Hellenistic in date, ca. third-second centuries BC.
In summer 1992, the first field season of the Northwestern University-Sanliurfa Museum excavations at Hacinebi had three main goals: a) determining the sequence of Late Chalcolithic occupation at the site, with an emphasis on identifying and dating the period of maximum Mesopotamian contact; b) determining the construction date and function of the massive mud brick architecture which had been exposed by modern borrow pits and road building along the south slope of the mound; and c) beginning a long term program of broad horizontal exposures aimed at determining whether site level changes in economic organization and the degree of social complexity developed during the mid-to-late fourth millennium BC. Excavations were carried out in three areas (figure 2):
A) Operation 1 - a 5 x 10 meter step trench, located on east slope of the mound in an area where surface survey had indicated a major concentration ofSouth Mesopotamian ceramic types, especially Bevel Rim Bowls.
B) Operation 2 - a 5 x 10 meter trench on south slope in the area where massive mud brick architecture was visible in the section of a borrow pit
C) Operation 3 - a 5 x 5 meter trench on top of the mound, in the Northeast quadrant, to determine the depth of the Hellenistic deposits overlying the Late Chalcolithic strata.
Due to the short, one month duration of the first field season, excavations investigated both Hellenistic and Late Chalcolithic/Late Uruk deposits, but did not reach virgin soil in these exposures.
OPERATION 1
Excavations in Operation 1 defined two main fourth millennium BC phases of occupation based on stratigraphy, architecture, and associated ceramics: an earlier, “Pre-Contact Phase” with only local southeast Anatolian Late Chalcolithic ceramics, and a later “Contact Phase” which had both local and south Mesopotamian Late Uruk types (figure 3).
Pre-Contact Phase
The earliest excavated deposits in Operation 1 exposed small scale domestic architecture, burials and trash deposits dated to the mid-late fourth millennium BC by their Amuq F chaff tempered ceramic assemblage (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960), also known from recent salvage excavations in the Karababa Basin to the north of Hacinebi at Kurban Höyük (phase VI - Algaze 1990) and Karatut Mevkii (Schwartz 1988b). The two most frequently occurring Amuq F diagnostic chaff tempered ceramic types were “hammerhead bowls” - large, open-form serving vessels, low fired, generally hand made, often flint scraped; and “Casseroles” - deep, carinated cooking pots with an everted or overhanging rim (figure 4). These are widely distributed along the interface zone between the eastern Taurus mountains and the Syrian steppe, from the Amuq plain in the west to the Habur headwaters region in the east (Oates 1986, Schwartz 1988a). In addition to these chaff tempered hand-made coarse-wares, the Pre-Contact Phase also yielded a local southeast Anatolian grit tempered, wheel made fine-ware assemblage characterized by small buff-to-pink burnished bowls which are either hemispheric or carinated. These local Late Chalcolithic fine wares are also attested in contemporaneous occupations of Kurban, Brak, and Leilan. Mortuary practices in the Pre-Contact Phase continue the local southeast Anatolian tradition of jar burials of infants and small children within the settlement itself.
Contact Phase
The appearance of Late Uruk Mesopotamian ceramics at Hacinebi defines the beginning of the Contact Phase in Operation 1. This ceramic change coincides with a major architectural re-organization at Hacinebi. A massive 2.80 m. high stone terrace wall (locus 47) was constructed, and the area behind it filled in with alternating layers of mud and pieces of angular limestone. A mud brick retaining wall was built around the top of this raised platform. A series of non-monumental (possibly residential) rooms were then constructed on top of the terrace platform, overlooking a lower series of rooms which were built up against its base.
In preliminary analyses, the distributions of Late Uruk Mesopotamian ceramics versus Local Late Chalcolithic types show marked contrasts between the structures on top of the platform terrace and those at its base. The rooms at the base yielded almost exclusively Local Amuq F ceramics. By contrast, both local types and large amounts of Late Uruk Mesopotamian ceramics were present in the rooms and associated trash deposits on top of the platform terrace.
On top of the platform terrace, the two ceramic traditions usually occurred together in the same contexts. However, some stratigraphically contemporaneous deposits showed clear spatial differences between the distributions of Local and Mesopotamian ceramics. On the west side of wall 10, ceramics consisted exclusively of Local Late Chalcolithic types. However, contemporaneous deposits on the east side of the same wall yielded only Late Uruk Mesopotamian ceramics. Massive amounts of Bevel Rim Bowls were present - over 4300 fragments from a single deposit in an area only 3 x 3 meters wide (figure 5a). Many of the Bevel Rim Bowls seem to have been used only once before being discarded. In addition, a wide variety of Late Uruk diagnostics were found, including conical cups, ladles, red slipped wares, droop spouts, chaff tempered trays/platters, and a full range of storage jars. The only major Late Uruk types which were rare or absent in this assemblage were Blumentöpfe and storage jars with nose lugs and cross hatched incised triangular decoration.
One of the most most unusual aspects of the Contact-Phase material on the platform terrace is the presence of bitumen in the deposits with exclusively Uruk pottery. The bitumen occurs in several forms, suggesting a wide range of uses: e.g. a shaped piece bearing reed impressions on one side and the shape of the bowl/container on the other (figure 5b), a disk shaped plug of bitumen, and one piece bearing the impressions of parallel wooden beams. This last piece might possibly have been used as waterproofing on a roof or a raft. In addition, 54 sherds had bitumen residues, apparently as lining in both jars and bevel rim bowls. It is important to note that the bitumen residues occurred almost exclusively on Late Uruk Mesopotamian style ceramics.
Although some natural sources are recorded for this area (Forbes 1955:map 1), bitumen is extremely rare in Late Chalcolithic sites in southeast Anatolia. At Hacinebi, it is apparently limited to the Contact Phase of the site, and even then only is almost exclusively found in association with Mesopotamian style ceramics. By contrast, bitumen sources are common in Southern Mesopotamia, with one of the most widely used seepages at Hit on the Euphrates river (Forbes 1955:33-40). Similarly, bitumen is ubiquitous as a construction material and sealant at Late Uruk settlements in the south. These clear inter-regional contrasts in bitumen availability and use raise the possibility that this material might have been either a trade good exported from Mesopotamia to southeast Anatolia, or else the packaging within which some other (as yet unidentified) trade good was transported. In this respect, it may be significant that bitumen has also been found at the Uruk settlement of Habuba Kabira in Syria (Connan and Deschesne 1991:156). The bitumen samples and residues will be submitted for chemical characterization studies to determine whether or not they derive from Mesopotamian sources (e.g. Connan et al. 1992).
OPERATION 2
Operation 2 was opened to investigate an area where modern borrow pits and road building activities had exposed in-situ mud brick walls, apparently extending for up to 32 meters along the south slope of the mound. Initially, these exposures were thought to be traces of a mud brick fortification wall around Hacinebi. Excavations in Operation 2 revealed a sequence of Pre-Contact and Contact occupation phases (figure 6) similar to those in Operation 1.
Pre-Contact Phase:
The Pre-Contact Phase in Operation 2 was characterized by large scale public architecture. Excavations revealed that the mud brick visible in modern pits was not, in fact, a fortification wall. Instead the brick forms part of a massive mud brick building, oriented Northeast-Southwest, with at least one wall 1.70 meters thick. Both floor deposits, and post-abandonment trash layers in this building contained only Local Late Chalcolithic Amuq F ceramics. The northeast corner of one room inside this structure extended into Operation 2. and was excavated, exposing a niche in the north wall, with a small plaster installation built on the floor in front of it. On the floor of the niched room, a small carved grey stone pendant was found, apparently made of chlorite. Since the nearest known chlorite sources are in southeast Iran, the Hacinebi pendant may provide evidence for long-distance exchange systems which antedate the Late Uruk expansion into Southeast Anatolia.
After several rebuilding episodes, the large public building was abandoned. The tops of the walls show evidence of exposure and erosion, indicating a possible hiatus in the use of this portion of the site at the end of the Pre-Contact Phase.Contact Phase:
The Contact Phase in Operation 2 consists of a large stone building which overlies the trash filled rooms and eroded mud brick walls of the Pre-Contact Phase. The ceramic assemblage associated with this later building encompasses both Local Late Chalcolithic Amuq F and Late Uruk Mesopotamian forms. Inside the stone building a fragment of a stamp-impressed jar sealing was recovered (figure 7a and b). The underside of the sealing bears the impression of a small diameter jar rim and neck, along with possible string imprints. Although badly damaged, enough of the obverse is preserved to show the impression of a round stamp seal with a figural decoration. Round stamp seals of this type are consistent with the Local Late Chalcolithic glyptic tradition as seen at Arslantepe (Ferioli and Fiandra 1983; Palmieri 1985, Frangipane and Palmieri 1987) and Gawra (Tobler 1950, Rothman 1988, Rothman and Blackman 1990) in the late 4th millennium. The presence of sealings indicates that Hacinebi was somehow involved in administering the movement of goods during the Contact Phase. The use of rounded stamp seals suggests that local, as opposed to Mesopotamian, individuals/offices participated to at least some degree in this system.
Hellenistic
Following the abandonment of the Late Chalcolithic Contact Phase stone building, an overlying sterile deposit nearly 1 meter thick provides evidence for a long term abandonment of the site between ca. 3000-300 BC. Above this deposit, a stone enclosure wall was constructed parallel to the south eadge of the mound. Associated ceramics date this wall to the Hellenistic period. This is the final occupation attested to date at Hacinebi.
OPERATION 3
Excavations in Operation 3 aimed at determining the nature and depth of the Hellenistic deposits overlying the Late Chalcolithic strata at Hacinebi (figure 8). During the Hellenistic period, Operation 3 appears to have been a courtyard or outdoor surface area containing numerous deep, trash filled pits. The pits were in some cases cut to depths of more than two meters, seriously disturbing the underlying Late Chalcolithic deposits. In the mixed deposits in one of the pits (locus 6), the top portion of a bitumen dipped clay wall cone was found (figure 9). The dimensions and flat head of this fragment closely match the wall cones found in the Late Uruk enclave at Hassek Hüyük (Behm-Blancke 1989). If clay wall cones are, in fact, exclusively associated with Uruk Mesopotamian administrative or religious buildings, then a structure of this sort might have been present in the center of the Contact Phase local settlement at Hacinebi.
CONCLUSIONS
The discovery at Hacinebi of an occupational sequence with both Pre-Contact and Contact phases provides a rare opportunity to study the ways in which the expansion of Late Uruk Mesopotamia affected the social, political, and economic development of its resource rich neighbors in the fourth millennium BC. Several lines of evidence suggest that existing models of the Uruk expansion may have underestimated the role of Local Late Chalcolithic cultures in this process.
The public architecture and associated evidence for long distance exchange of chlorite ornaments raise the possibility that the Pre-Contact societies of southeast Anatolia might have been considerably more complex than is generally recognized. If correct, this reconstruction would have two important implications:
a) the political influence of Uruk Mesopotamia on local development may well have been less dramatic than is commonly posited by reconstructions based on “World System”(Wallerstein 1974) or “Dependency” (Frank 1967) models;
b) Instead of being pawns in a Mesopotamian-dominated trading network, the local cultures of southeast Anatolia might have been able to exert a considerable degree of control over their end of the inter-regional exchange system. The use of local style stamp seals during the Contact Phase also suggests that local Southeast Anatolians were playing an active role in the movement of goods (although it is still uncertain whether the seal fragment relates to local or long-distance exchange).
Contact Phase deposits at Hacinebi have the potential to clarify the organization of the Uruk exchange system in this area. The bitumen objects and residues from Operation 1 may be the first direct evidence for Mesopotamian trade goods present in an Anatolian settlement. Equally important, the presence of an Uruk style clay wall cone, and the very sharp differences in Operation 1 between the distributions of Mesopotamian versus local ceramics raise the possibility that a small group of Mesopotamians might actually have lived among the local people at Hacinebi during the Contact Phase. If this turns out to be the case, then we have an almost unique opportunity to examine the interaction between Mesopotamians and Anatolians in the fourth millennium BC. Future seasons of fieldwork at Hacinebi will continue to focus on these aspects of cxore-periphery relations in the ancient Mesopotamian world.
REFERENCES CITED
Algaze, G.
1989 The Uruk Expansion: Cross Cultural Exchange in Early Mesopotamian Civilization. Current Anthropology 30 (1): 571-608.
Algaze, G. (ed.)
1990 Town and Country in Southeastern Anatolia, Volume 2: The Straigraphic Sequence at Kurban Höyük. Chicago: University of Chicago, Oriental Institute Publication 110,
Algaze, G., Breuninger, R., Lightfoot, C., & Rosenberg, M.
1991 The Tigris-Euphrates Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Preliminary Report of the 1989-1990 Seasons. Anatolica 17: 175-240.
Behm-Blancke, M. R.
1981 Hassek Höyük. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen der Jahre 1978-1980. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 31 5-82.
1989 Mosaikstifte aus der Uruk-Zeit am Oberen Euphrat. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 39: 73-83.
Braidwood, R., & Braidwood, L.
1960 Excavations in the Plain of Antioch. . Chicago, University of Chicago Oriental Institute.
Connan, Jacques and Odile Deschesne
1991 Le Bitume dans l’Antiquité. La Recherche 22 (no. 229): 152-159.
Connan , Jacques; Daniel Dessort, and Odile Deschesne
1992 Les Bitumes de Tell es Sawwan en Irak: Un Modele d'Huiles Extremement Biodegradées et Oxidées. Bull. Centres Rech. Explor.-Prod. Elf Aquitaine 16(1):33-53.
Great Britain
1916 A Handbook of Mesopotamia. . Admiralty War Staff Intelligence Division.
Dilleman, L.
1962 Haute Mesopotamie Orientale et Pays Adjacents. . Paris, Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.
Forbes, R.J.
1955 Studies in Ancient Technology, Volume I. Leiden, E.J. Brill
Frangipane, M., & Palmieri, A.
1987 Urbanization in Perimesopotamian Areas: the Case of Eastern Anatolia. In L. Manzanilla (Ed.), Studies in the Neolithic and Urban Revolutions pp. 295-318. Oxford, BAR International Series 349.
Frank, A. G.
1967 Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America: Historical Studies of Chile and Brasil. . New York, Monthly Review Press.
Oates, D.
1968 Studies in the Ancient History of Northern Iraq. . London, Oxford University Press.
Oates, J.
1986 Tell Brak: The Uruk/Early Dynastic Sequence. In Uwe Finkbeiner and Wolfgang Röllig (eds.) Gamdat Nasr. Period or Regional Style?. Wiesbaden, Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Palmieri, A.
1985 Eastern Anatolia and Early mesopotamian Urbanization: Remarks on Changing Relations. In M. Liverani, A. Palmieri, & R. Peroni (Ed.), Studi di Paletnologia in Onore di Salvatore M. Puglisi. pp. 191-213. Rome, Universita di Roma: La Sapienza.
Rothman, M.
1988 Centralization, Administration, and Function at Fourth Millennium BC Tepe Gawra, Northern Iraq. PhD, University of Pennsylvania, Anthropology Department,
Rothman, M., & Blackman, M. J.
1990 Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis of Sealing Clays from tepe Gawra, Nineveh, Arpachiyah, and Tell Brak. In Naomi Miller (ed.) Economy and Settlement in the Near East: Analyses of Ancient Sites and Materials. MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology, Supplement to Volume 7. pp 19-45. Philadelphia; University of Pennsylvania, University Museum.
Schwartz, G.
1988a A Ceramic Chronology from Tell Leilan. . New Haven, Yale University Press.
Schwartz, G.
1988b Excavations at Karatut Mevkii and Perspectives on the Uruk/Jemdet Nasr Expansion. Akkadica 56 1-41.
Stein, G.
1990 Comments on G. Algaze: 'The Uruk Expansion: Cross Cultural Exchange in early Mesopotamian Civilization'. Current Anthropology 31 (1): 66-67.
Strommenger, E.
1980 Habuba Kabira, Eine Stadt vor 5000 Jahren. . Mainz am Rhein, Phillip von Zabern.Sürenhagen, D.
1986 The Dry-Farming Belt: The Uruk Period and Subsequent Developments. In H. Weiss (Ed.), The Origins of Cities in Dry Farming Syria and Mesopotamia in the Third Millennium BC pp. 7-43. Guilford (CT), Four Quarters Publishing Co.
van Driel, G., & Van Driel-Murray, C.
1983 Jebel Aruda, the 1982 Season of Excavation. Interim Report. Akkadica 33 1-26.
Wagner, J.
1976 Seleukeia am Euphrat/Zeugma. . Wiesbaden, Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Wallerstein, I.
1974 The Modern World System I. . San Diego, Academic Press.
Wattenmaker, P.
1990 Comments on G. Algaze: 'The Uruk Expansion: Cross Cultural Exchange in early Mesopotamian Civilization'. Current Anthropology 31 (1): 67-69.
FIGURES:
Figure 1: Map of the Near East, showing location of Hacinebi Tepe relative to other major Uruk and Local Late Chalcolithic sites in southeast Anatolia.
Figure 2: Site Plan of Hacinebi (2 meter contour interval) showing location of Operations 1, 2, and 3.
Figure 3: Operation 1: South Section Stratigraphic Profile.
Figure 4: Local Late Chalcolithic Amuq F Chaff tempered coarse ware ceramics: top - “hammerhead bowl”, bottom - “casserole”.
Figure 5: a. Operation 1: Bevel Rim Bowls, conical cup and grit tempered jars from the Contact Phase pure Uruk ceramic deposit in locus 12. Note bitumen on juglet.
b. Reed impressed piece of bitumen - top view. The bottom shows the impression of a bevel rim bowl interior.
Figure 6: Operation 2: West Section Stratigraphic Profile.
Figure 7: a. Operation 2: Contact Phase - stamp impressed jar sealing - top view
b. Operation 2: Contact Phase - stamp impressed jar sealing - underside of sealing.
Figure 8: Operation 3: North and East Section Strratigraphic Profiles.
Figure 9: Operation 3: Bitumen dipped Uruk clay wall cone.
Figure 5: Top. Overview of Operation 1 showing Contact Phase platform terrace and fill.
Bpottom. Operation 1: Bevel Rim Bowl from the Contact Phase pure Uruk ceramic deposit in locus 12.
Figure 7: Top: Operation 2: General view from south
Bottom: Operation 2: Contact Phase - stamp impressed jar sealing - top view
Figure 9: Operation 3: Bitumen dipped Uruk clay wall cone.
Gil J. Stein
g-stein@northwestern.edu
Anthropology Department, Northwestern University
Last modified - July 20, 2001