Landscape and Tradition: The Scarlet Ware as a 'Trait d'Union'.

Full text

Landscape and Tradition:
The Scarlet Ware as ‘trait d’union’.
Francesco Del Bravo
Freie Universität, Berlin
During the last years many have been the proposals for a new chronological paradigm which
tend to delete the ED 2 period as a cultural break in central and southern Mesopotamian
sequences, leaving a slower, derivative and, definitely, consequential transition from the
initial ED 1 to the ED 3a period (see Ehric 1992; Evans 2007; Suerenhagen 2011; Dittmann
1986a, 1986b, 1987, 2013, 2015; to cite a few. But see Suerenhagen 2011 which leaves un-
muted the transition between ‘Houses 7’ to ‘Houses 6’ because on the architectural evidence
that transition should be maintained).
Scope of the present paper is to establish a chronological attribution of Lower Diyala
sequences, based on the correlation between the polychrome materials found in central
mesopotamia and western Luristan at the beginning of III millennium BC; and then to
highlight how these evolutive steps of Scarlet Ware pottery replicate the social organization
of the region. Or, to say it differently, how the social structure of central mesopotamian
regions, and its shaping, goes through the use of Scarlet Ware material as marker, and
medium, of a shared commonality.
SCARLET WARE POTTERY
But let’s turn now to Scarlet Ware pottery properly, for then coming back to the socio-
cultural aspects of the society and their evolution. This because only after the stylistic
analysis of the painted pottery has been presented and its chronological position ascertained
with safety, will result clear how, through the study of this class of materials, is possible to
infer social and para-social constructs which found their identitary element of transmission
subsumed in their material culture, resulting so in symbolic value.
Since the beginning Delougaz, in his publication of the Pottery from the Diyala Region of
1952, clearly recognized how SW is directly connected to the precedent JN polychrome
specimens found across ‘greater Mesopotamia’ (Algaze 1993, 2001; Frangipane 2001), and
not only, at least for what pertain to the Diyala region. Delougaz himself also clearly
identified an Early phase which he labeled as ‘Transitional’ to indicate those specimens
halfway between the classicals, JN and Scarlet Ware. In our reconstruction 3 phases are
highlighted in the evolution of this material, labeled as: Early, Classic and Late SW.
- Early SW: namely the transitional specimens (Diyala, Hamrin, Pusht-i Kuh).
- Classic SW: ED 1 levels in Lower Diyala, Hamrin and Pusht-i Kuh.
- Late SW: ED 1-2 (= ED 1 Late) in Razuk, Tell al-Naml, Tell al-Faras, Mari (NOT
Diyala = ‘Oval I’ construction, SW disappear).
! di !1 13

The Early Scarlet Ware phase includes materials which have been recognized in Lower
Diyala, specifically at Khafajah (Sin Temple Sector; ‘Houses’ sector), Tell Asmar and Tell
Agrab, in Tell Gubba levels VIIa-b/VI and Tell Ahmad al-Hattu in the Hamrin region and
on the Pusht-i Kuh (Ilam Province, Luristan) in the burial grounds of Mir khair, Bani
Surmah and Kalleh Nisar A1. During this phase we face not homogeneous materials, not
simply because we are still not in a full ED 1 period (when SW is already become
standardized) but because is clearly evident, looking at the materials, how elements we find
in the Lower Diyala specimens are completely absent from Hamrin and Pusht-i Kuh. Not
only single pictorial frames and motives, but mostly the structuring of decorations, in this
phase, show a fragmented regional picture, and surely not a uniform one as inferred lastly by
Haerinck in 2011. First of all, the most typical trait which led Delougaz to circumscribe a
transitional phase was the alledged presence of decorative frames confined to the upper part
of the Jars he took in analysis. These elements results to be be typical in the horizont of
levels ‘Houses 12/11–10’ and the corresponding ‘Sin Temple IV–V’ in Khafajah with a
lower frequency exclusively in level VII of Gubba; instead completely absent in Pusht-i
Kuh.
Properly western Luristan, in this early phase, shows few elements which could support an
inclusion of the specimens in the SW tradition, materials in fact show a predilection for
rounded shapes customarily without carination or, when present, of a lighter one. More over
the structuring of pictorial decoration, in western Luristan, seems to predilige the horizontal
development of superimposed registers filled by geometrical compositions, on which, after
the measurements of the single frames-elements and motifs, has clearly appeared a
redundancy in the position, and dimensions, of the frames theirselves and a regularity/
simmetry which gives to the specimens the impression of a ‘finite whole’. According to this
I would propose to maintain the simpler label ‘polychrome ware’ for the Pusht-i Kuh
materials in this early phase, since nothing comparable to transitional SW seems to be
detectable. Indeed there are some other characteristics of the western Luristan materials that
deserve a nearest focus, resulting to be discriminating factors to corroborate the present
hypothesis. First factor is the employment of polychrome decorations on specimens with
coarse pastes, usually mineral, but vegetal temper is present too despite being in lower
quantities (differently lower Diyala’s SW is always of a very well tempered paste and it is
ubiquitous adopted a mineral one). Second element of originality is the absence of
decoration in the lower part of the vessels, something never found in what we are used to
call SW (being it ‘early’ or ‘classic’). Third, and possibly the most important, is the use of a
bigger variety of pottery shapes, from medium size rounded Jars to miniaturistic Goblets
(never exceding the 20cm H.), from single wind-lug Jars to upright-handle ones, or from
squatter-rounded four-lugs Jars to medium Jars with gutters and knobs at the junction neck/
shoulder and plastic ridges over the points of changing inclination of the vascular surfaces
(specifically these plastic ridges applied at the junction shoulder/body will result to be a
classical element in Lower Diyala during the Classic SW period – ED 1 Late - continuing to
be employed later in the regional varieties found on the settlements of the Sulaymanyia
region, directly north of the Diyala river basin). Someone would have surely noticed how in
the above presentation of materials nothing has been said about the Hamrin ones, this, is due
to the peculiar function played the Hamrin settlements and materials. In fact I suggest to see
this last region as a buffer zone between Lower Diyala and Pusht-i Kuh, this will result
clearer when properly looking at the painted pottery. Hamrin in this initial phase has given
back occupation detected only on the grounds of Tell Gubba in level VII-VI and, possibly,
Ahmad al-Hattu. Here as already Jane Moon (1986) noticed; shapes are not as standardized
as Diyala specimen, favouring rounded profiles, coarser ware tempers and higher
percentages of round, or ring, bases, instead of the classical flat base of JN polychrome
pottery. But not only bases result to be a-typical in the Gubba materials, another factor
! di !2 13

completely absent in Lower Diyala is the presence of spouts applied to the surfaces, or the
predilection for shorter/squatter necks, sometimes becoming real ‘hole-mouth’ Jars,
underlined by the application of the typical gutter-ridge at the junction with the body.
A last aspect helpful for discerning what can be labeled as SW and what is preferable to
label simply ‘polychrome pottery’ is to be connected with materials of Iranian origins, like
Aliabad Ware, Mussyan Ware and the Proto-Susa II ceramics. If on a side elements typical
of these traditions have been transmitted to the Hamrin, and then, later, to the Diyala
materials in the SW phase labeled as ‘Classic’ (like the plastic ridge between shoulder and
body which become marker of ED 1 period SW). On the other we have detected the
presence of imports of Aliabad style pottery in at least one of the burial grounds of the
Hamrin, namely Ahmad al-Hattu.
Summing up the elements we have dealt with, we clearly have the possibility to propose for
this Early SW phase chronological and stylistic adjustments, in respect to the traditional
employed. First, and this is supported also by the re-analysis made by Dittmann (1986,
1987) for the Khuzestan (Susa) and Deh Loran sequences, we should consider a
contemporaneity of the Aliabad and Mussyan styles with the transitional specimens of SW,
so very end of the Protoliterate d period and early in the ED 1. Then, considering that
materials in Aliabad Ware tradition were found in the Ahmad al-Hattu cemetery, and the
chronological delay inferred by J. Moon and K. Wilson for the Hamrin, so that JN period
there correspond to in the south; seems safe to say that we could mark Aliabad and
Mussyan’s pottery beginnings at the end of the Jemdet Nasr period (=Transitional in
Diyala). Related to this I would simply remember the comment made by G. Algaze at the
end of R. Dittmann presentation in Tuebingen Colloquium, signaling that nothing in the
Susa and Deh Loran sequences for the beginning of III millennium seemed to have anything
related to what we are used to refer to as Jemdet Nasr – he used the expression ‘NO REAL
JN’. On this I would argue that this absence is easily explained with the concept of
‘Distinction/Diversification’ (or as labeled by other ‘Isochrestic variations’), so to say that,
not having a Mesopotamian JN pottery on the Iranian regions at the turning of IV/III
millennium, could be comfortably explained adopting the Mussyan (first) and Aliabad (after)
traditions as Iranian (or Proto-Elamite) substitutes for it (see Johnson’s results about his
Khuzestan survey: with the end of the Late Uruk period depopulation of the region and
possibly shifting boundaries north to the Deh Loran region, resulting in a regionalization
and took up by the Highland Proto-Elamite populations, resulting in the employment of a
variety of ‘polychrome pottery materials’). More over, specially in the Mussyan tradition we
clearly find characteristics of proximity with the JN – plum red slips, strong carinations,
geometrical designs; others instead, that despite being not typical of the JN tradition of
Mesopotamia, will find their way in the Classic Diyala SW through their appearance, in this
Early phase, on the materials of Pusht-i Kuh and Hamrin: decoration which covers almost
completely the vascular surfaces except over the bottom of the pottery, ridges and gutters
applied at the junctures of the bodies, schematic repetition of the central decorative theme in
the smaller metopes employed in the frames over the shoulders, zoomorphic figurations).
We turn now to
the Classic Scarlet Ware phase which pertains principally, to the most famous specimens
discovered in Lower and Upper Diyala and is partly recognized in regional variants in
western Luristan. Chronologically speaking we are confined to the central part of ED 1,
possibly extending to the beginning of the ED 2 phase in the Hamrin and Pusht-i Kuh, but
ending in Lower Diyala, with the construction of the first Oval temple phase (= Oval I). In
this second moment of evolution of SW, we assist to an overall homogeneity of the painted
materials over the three regions in analysis. But, despite this generalized homogeneity,
some, limited, peculiar aspects are evident on a micro-regional level: in Lower Diyala, for
! di !3 13

this phase, SW is already a well standardized tradition found exclusively on a single shape –
the Upright-handle Jar and a sub-variant of it – the Single-lugged Jar. These ones have
typically elongated profiles; flat, or ring, bases; strong carinations between shoulder and
body which give to the upper profiles an almost horizontal contour; application of plastic
ridges over the carination (Iranian influence). But if in Lower Diyala the corpus is well fixed
during this period, is still on the Hamrin and Pusht-i Kuh sides that we will find a
structuring-mixture of elements which represents a character of originality for the
productions of these neighboring zones.
In fact in the Hamrin, next to the more standard shapes of Lower Diyala inspiration we are
still able to identify aspects which have regionalized character, and probably derive from the
above mentioned Iranian influxes: like the roundness predilection for the Jars’ shapes, the
presence of spouts on them, the almost complete absence of flat bases leaving place to ring
bases, in many cases with a rounded bottom exceding the ring base line of support, making
the pottery unstable, so not suitable for a display function. Parts of these features are to be
found, and exactly matched, in the Pusht-i Kuh materials too, even if there seem to be a
complete absence of spouts (or pouring elements) attached to the polychrome materials. But
we commonly recognize rounded bases and bodies, vertical and flaring necks, rims slightly
everted but never of the bevelled, or triangular typology, as is instead typical of Diyala SW.
Carination is present too, but the frequency is definitely lower than Diyala and Hamrin and,
when found, is lighter than the mesopotamian examples.
Another fundamental aspect for the distinction of regionalized productions, and this last
character attains specifically to the Pusht-i Kuh, while is more rarely identified in the
Hamrin, is the application of pictoric decoration, in red and black, over a not afore treated
surface. If, in fact, the Classic SW of Lower Diyala shows the application of paint in rigid
compositional steps (white slip, red decorations, black boundaries), in Hamrin this appears
to be more rarely employed (even if sometimes substituted with a fake white slip – white
wash) and in the Pusht-i Kuh is only rarely identified, resulting more common a red/black
decoration directly applied over an un-slipped surface. Indeed, as already clarified for the
Early Phase, paste composition seem to remain regionally-based, with the Lower and Upper
Diyala showing finer minerally tempered pastes (with a lower percentage for Hamrin sites)
and western Luristan showing coarser pastes often tempered with mineral, but sometimes
vegetal elements too.
Despite these regional differences the resulting image during the Classic SW period is one
of uniformity of the materials, resembling a unitary cultural tradition active in the region.
Surely we can distinguish sub-areas with diversified peculiarities, resulting in materials of
imitation, but which acquire elements of originality as far as we move out of the Lower
Diyala core. This, I think, is due to the proximity, on the Luristan side, of different painted
traditions to be put in connection with: the ‘Highland Cultures’ of the central Iranian plateau
(to develop later in the famous ‘Susa II Style’ in Khuzestan and Godin III:6 in NW Iran) and
the Deh Loran ones, which, as already shown for the early phase, have played an important
role in the employement, on the mesopotamian side, of decorative features originally
discovered, and used, in the two painted traditions of Mussyan and Aliabad Wares [it has to
be underlined anyway that the influx of these Iranian traditions slowly weaken during the
ED 1, and is unlikely recognized still, in the SW production during this Classic Phase - we
could say that during the Classic SW phase these Iranian inspired elements are already
absorbed and developed from the preceding period].
Last step, then, is represented by
The Late Scarlet Ware phase which ranges, chronologically speaking, between the
beginning of ED 2 and the middle of the period, possibly extending in the northern region of
Sulaymanyia to the end of it. Adopting the new chronological proposals enounced in the
! di !4 13

former part of the speech, I would comfortably pose the chronological phase of Late SW in
the period labeled as ED 1 Late. Now SW seems to completely disappear from Lower
Diyala, while in the Hamrin is identified only in an early phase of ED 2 (or ED 1 Late) on
the settlement of Tell Razuk, which represents the last occupation detected in the Upper
Diyala basin. The Late SW is direct continuation of the preceding tradition, employing the
same decorative features, geometric chross-hatching, triangles, wave lines, zoomorphic
elements and the like. And at the same time showing a complete standardization of shape:
the Upright-handle Jar (which will continue to be used on undecorated specimens for the
entire ED 2 and ED 3 periods). Specimens connected to this last phase are to be found
outside the core of SW, it has been in fact recognized on the recently excavated settlements
of Tell al-Naml and Tell al-Faras during the Makhul Dam Salvage Project in the Lower Zab
region of the Sulaymanyia Province; and it was recognized on the site of Tell Hariri (ancient
Mari) in sectors B, L and the famous Tomb 300.
From a chronological point of view is worth considering the exceptional finding in a Tell al-
Naml’s grave of an Upright-handle Jar decorated in SW fashion in context with a pedestal
bowl decorated in Ninevite 5 painted tradition. The excavated context with these materials
coupled toghether, one inside the other, gives with good certainity a terminus post quem for
the production of SW which, as said above, should be considered at the latest the end of ED
2 (or ED 1 Late). The same chronological range, even if in the meaning of a terminus ante
quem, is given by the stratified materials of areas B, and by Tomb 300 in Mari. In area B
painted Ninevite 5 post dates the strata in which SW has been recognized, considering this
aspect and connecting it with two calibrated C14 dates from the basal level of Area B (Lev.
18) which has produced a date around 2865 BC, seems possible to deduce that the decline,
and end soon after, of the SW production in central Mesopotamia is situated around the end
of ED 2, in terms of classical ED chronology. Peculiar of the specimens from both
Sulaymanyia and Mari regions is that they are surely locally produced; in the case of Mari
this evidence is astonishingly clear, SW decoration seems to be employed directly on the
most typical regional shapes of the earlier periods of development of the site, and region. So
we recognize a tendency toward a complete absence of carination on the Jars, the use of
mineral temper on very coarse wares, with big inclusions in the paste, a predilection for
roughly ovoid profiles on low ring bases. Even decoration’s structure is not so standard if
paralleled with Diyala SW, this is due to the application, as said, of painted decoration not
over the classical carinated Jars, which naturally, by their own profiles, offer a ‘pre-
structuring’ of pictorial frames into pre-determined parts of the vessels (vertical metopes for
the lower body, geometrical setting delimiting them, reproduction of the central body’s
theme on the smaller methopes over the shoulder of Jars). Something that in Mari seems to
be completely avoided. Differently enough the specimens from al-Naml and al-Faras show
more strict connections with the core regions of SW, here specimens are locally produced
too, but we recognize the traditional Upright-handle Jars, in this case adopting everted, or
flaring rims; plastic ridges applied at the junction shoulder/body, ring bases and methopal
subdivision of the lower part of the vessels, filled with zoomorphic (caprids) themes framed
by the common geometrical motifs.
Now having described Scarlet Ware pottery, the evidence shows how the proposed division
in 3 phases of evolution for it seems to be confirmed, corroborating on a more general level
the new chrono-stratigraphical paradigm employed for Central and Souther Mesopotamia
(after ARCANE Project):
! di !5 13

•EARLY SCARLET WARE: Late Jemdet Nasr – middle ED 1 (= ARCANE: ECM
1/2)
•CLASSIC SCARLET WARE: middle ED 1 – beginning ED 2 (= ARCANE: ECM
2/3)
•LATE SCARLET WARE: ED 2 (= ARCANE: ECM 3)
Before moving to the analysis of Scarlet Ware society and culture, I would like to make
some more few remarks about the stylistic evolution and relative chronology of the pottery,
taking as a starting point two questions raised by Prof. Sürenhagen during the 2009
Heidelberg Colloquium entitled Between the Cultures (Miglus - Mühl eds, 2011):
1. Can we infer an influx on Lower Diyala’s material culture which takes origin from
the Upper Diyala basin fringes and arrives partly delayed in the Lower ones?
2. Are there indications by which supposing that parts of the technical-decorative-
morphological aspects, typical of ED 1 Lower Diyala’s Scarlet Ware, have appeared
earlier in the Upper Diyala basin, namely Hamrin? And if so, can we identify the
peculiar characteristics which represents the roots of these derivated traits?
In light of the elements of chronology, stratigraphy and style decoration described in the
former, seems clear how the two questions raised by Prof. Sürenhagen should received
positive acceptance in future. In fact mashing together many scattered points of evidence, in
the ample documentation about SW, I would enumerate the principals, which, better fit with
the proposal of Sürenhagen:
1. Evidence from Tell Gubba levels VII-VI (considered to be correspondent to the
Early SW phase) shows the employment of zoomorphic figurative motifs which
results to be completely absent in the classical JN polychrome pottery of
Mesopotamia.
2. The chronological positioning of the Aliabad (Tall i-blis stratigraphic sequence)
and Mussyan wares into the JN period, corresponding to the period of Khuzestan
depopulation (Johnson 1973), and took up, by the so-called ‘Highland Culures’
allow to consider the Deh Loran region as one of the two ‘homelands’ of SW
pottery.
3. Polychrome materials from western Luristan (= Pusht-i Kuh) in the Early SW
phase show almost no relations with Lower Diyala materials, and after the micro
stylistic analysis I engaged with working on them, has resulted to have brighter
levels of, redundancy and contiguity, to the Deh Loran materials (analized by
Emberl!ing for his PhD), than with the mesopotamian ones. 6
4. Only in Hamrin we have evidence of exchange in pottery materials (but also
material culture more generally, see Forest 2011; Gernez PhD thesis on Keith
Qasim I metal weapons), Gubba, Ahmad al-Hattu, reported the presence of
specimens in the Aliabad or Mussyan traditions, something never detected in
Lower Diyala.
! di !6 13

5. Presence of plastic ridges over the surfaces (typical of Mussyan-style pottery), at
the junctions where inclination change, is detected earlier in the Gubba and
Ahmad al-Hattu materials, and only in the Classic SW period will become one of
the most striking characteristics of SW in lower Diyala.
SCARLET WARE CULTURE AND SOCIETY
The relation between land and person is not one of containment… but one of integration…
In this sense kinship is geography, or landscape (Leach 2003: 30-31, cfr. in Sahlins 2013: 7)
Memory…is essentially linked to kinship. Indeed, in some sense it is kinship itself (Taylor
1996: 206, cfr. in Sahlins 2013: 8)
The construction of social memory can involve direct connections to ancestors in a
remembered past…often based on the re-interpretation of monuments or landscapes
(Gosden - Lock 1998, cfr. in Van Dyke - Alcock 2003: 3)
Concerning social memory….we may note that images of the past often legitimate a present
social order. It is an implicit rule that participants in any social order must presuppose a
shared memory (Connerton 1989: 3)
Having analyzed the general corpus of SW in detail, seems useful now to give some
insights on what SW can tell us about the culture which produced and used it. Regarding
this there are some preliminary elements which deserve attention: namely the landscape,
the social forces active in the region at the beginning of III millennium BC and the
connections between kinship traditions, ancestors descent and social organization.
Indeed these factors are even mutually dependent on each other, interconnected in a
word.
We should, first of all, consider the concept of ‘Isolation’ originally expressed by Adams
(1965) in his survey of the Land Behind Baghdad. He recognized how the three Lower
Diyala settlements excavated by Oriental Insitute ‘had grown in Isolation’ (Adams 1965:
41) going to stress the importance the rural landscape around the settlements had for
their internal growth and exploitation for agricultural surpluses, but at the same time
meaning with the word ‘Isolation’ that the Diyala sites were not newly settled but had
evolved from simple hamlets of Ubaid times to urban entities later in the III millennium
BC. More over the strip of land suitable for agriculture around each of the settlements
guaranteed a big amount of surplus, exceeding the needs of the cities’ population. But
how to make these agricultural surpluses advantageous for the Lower Diyala society? I
suppose we have to search for the answer aiming to the social formations in the
neighboring regions of Hamrin and western Luristan, which were composed of social
structures in the shape of segmentary tribes, practicing a nomadic pastoralist way of life.
Through this we have also good tools to understand variations in the pottery, SW,
according to the previous 3 steps progression used to describe the evolution of painted
pottery in the regions.
I have labeled the first step as ‘Contact Phase’ in which central role is played by the
Diyala sites through the medium of the Hamrin circular buildings, the function of which
is still debated. I would consider the Hamrin settlements as having a double significance
for the Lower Diyala entities; surely one of control over the trade route represented by
! di !7 13

the Trans-tigridian corridor, the other one which I would like to call of ‘integration’.
This, I suppose, because: despite having big amounts of agricultural surpluses to be
exploited, the position of the Lower Diyala settlements could not guarantee direct access
to the Iranian Highlands and raw materials, useful in order to legitimate the control of
power and labour by the elitè. I would also suggest the possibility that from the
formative period on, Lower Diyala society could have been composed by a bisected
social base, in part sedentary, in part mobile. In this vein the function connected to the
circular buildings in the Hamrin could have been to establish a contact with the semi-
nomadic half of the region, in a place suitable for stocking the agricultural surplus,
which possibly could have sustained the needs of nomadic pastoralist; since we know
already how a pastoral nomadic way of life is never self sufficient relying on herdings
and pastures, only. Seen this way we could reconstruct the role of Hamrin sites as ‘Units
of subsistence’ (Marx 1977), which at same time could guarantee to pastoralists a
sustenance for their activities and way of life, and the other way round allowed Lower
Diyala the provisioning of raw materials from the Highlands of Iran, furthermore giving
access to the big routes of exchange represented by the ‘Big Khorasan Road’ just north
of the Hamrin gorge, and the ‘Royal Road’ from lower Khuzestan up to the Trans-
tigridian corridor. More over is necessary to underline how during the centuries to come
the circular buildings slowly penetrated farther north-east in the hearth of the Piedmont
zone, at the foot of the Zagros range in a strategy of shifted, control and connection, with
the transhumant elements sloping down in winter times from the rocky enviroment of
highland Luristan.
In support of this hypothesis I would cite some few main arguments:
- As said, the short occupations identified in the Hamrin sites, no one exceeding
the 200 years.
- The positioning of the Hamrin settlements in geographical points which we could
label as ‘nodes of exchange’, governing the majour routes of movement across
the Piedmont strip.
- The association with the circular buildings of burial grounds, always in close
proximity to them, in which is possible to detect a clear Hierarchy in graves
positioning and construction (see Kheit Qasim I, Ahmadl al-Hattu, Tell Sabra. To
note that the same pattern of occupations has been identified in the Deh Loran
valley on clusters of sites represented by Tepe Farukhabad, Tepe Aliabad, Tepe
Mussyan and Tepe Khazineh ----- possible origin of nomadic element?).
- Analysis done on the metal goods found in the Kheit Qasim I necropolis has
shown that the sources for the metal alloy where to be localized in the Anarak
mines of central Iran. By contrast we have confirmation from chemical analysis
that painted pottery did not circulated at the beginning of III millennium between
these three neighboring regions (to mean that clays were extracted locally).
- Stocking the agricultural surplus to redirect it toward the nomadic population,
could have changed the initial function of the Hamrin settlements transforming
them in exchange points, where transactions between sedentary actors of the
Lower Diyala basin and nomadic elements could have been realized (in this vein
also the seal impressed Jars recovered from the Round Buildings and over-
imposed later settlements would find a comfortable clarification of their meaning,
together with the absence of the ubiquitous ‘Solid Foot Goblets’).
- As already shown, Hamrin pottery for this initial phase suffers a mixture of
elements both of iranian and mesopotamian influence, while the Pusht-i Kuh
materials seem to be completely excluded from the common/unitary label of SW,
properly because a contact was not yet completely established.
! di !8 13

The second step, labeled ‘Cooperation/Integration Phase’ (or Meijer’s ‘Active
Symbiosis’) represents a moment in which SW becomes highly standardized across
Lower and Upper Diyala, both from a figurative and a morphological point of view,
and in which in the monumental burial grounds of western Luristan we witness the
presence of the first materials of imitation for SW. Surely made locally, but pointing
to a direct interrelation between these 2 regions and their populations. Must be said
anyway, that part of the Pusht-i Kuh materials are still relinquished in varied forms of
decoration structuring which possibly are to be connected with eastern influxes (see
Godin Tepe, Kunjii Cave) and surely rely on the Deh Loran painted traditions which
were known with certainty by the nomadic pastoralist of Ilam Province. We have, in
fact, already seen how certain features where brought by Deh Loran traditions in the
mesopotamian corpus and some of them became the most common features in the
definition of a Classic SW tradition.
During this phase the general homogeneity of the pottery let us figure out a sort of
cooperation between the semi-nomadic and sedentary elements in the region, with
pastoralist having been partially integrated with their southern associates but possibly
not completely prone to Lower Diyala’s authority. In fact, still in this phase, it was
necessary for the Diyala to keep the contact alive, and the strategy was ensured by
the newly founded sites along the Narin valley. Interesting enough, in this phase we
recognize in Lower Diyala SW the use, for the first time, of anthropomorphic motifs
on the pottery, most of them to be connected with peculiar spheres of human activity:
sexual, healing and ‘kinship’ related. We are already aware of the importance the
sexual sphere had in segmentary tribal societies based on kin relations. But I would
like to focus the attention on a particular SW fragment from Khafajah which shows
an high rank character on a wagon backing 3-4 rows of superimposed horses.
Considering that Integration between segmentary nomadic society and sedentary one
had already started and was possibly already institutionalized, at least in part, I would
wonder if this specific figurative frame should not be related with a seat of nomadic
power directly in the urban layout of Tutub. If then we keep in mind what already E.
Marx sustained in 1977: that hierarchy and stratification are more suited to appear, in
nomadic tribal societies, when they come in contact and start to be integrated under
the authority of more centralized entities; because the various segments of the tribe
need to impose the presence of a ‘big man’ leadership to represent their interest in the
collective decision making apparatus. It result even more possible that part of the
segmented tribes spanning the steppe enviroment of Upper Diyala and the rocky
western Luristan chain, could have become perfectly integrated in their neighboring
hierarchical society. More over to support this figure of a dimorphic society, not yet
completely urbanized, we have to remind what in nomadic studies has been
underlined during the last 50 years; that segmentary societies once integrated with
more hierarchical ones have the possibility to switch, part of their tribe segments, to
productive units which let them be called specialized pastoralists.
The last phase we have distinguished according to the painted pottery evolution has
been labeled ‘Dimorphic State Phase’. In this last moment the Upper Diyala sites are
not in use anymore, I would say due to the complete integration between sedentary
and mobile groups started centuries earlier. Significantly the Hamrin structures
disappear, while the monumental burials in Pusht-i Kuh continue to be used till the
Akkad period, with an uninterrupted presence of polychrome materials for the later
periods too. I would like to connect these elements of continuity, first with the
territory and lastly with the kinship system of tribal lineages. If, as Sahlins tells us in
the former of the speech - kinship is geography, or landscape – I think we should
interpret the necropolis of Bani Surmah and Kalleh Nisar as ancestors-cult places,
! di !9 13

traces of which are detectable, from ‘Houses 11’ on in the sequence of Khafajah’s
private sector, in the graves under the pavements of Houses sector.
Many other points could be reported to support this interpretation, I will only cite a
few:
- The ongoing use of the western Zagros burial grounds for almost a millennium.
- The presence of multiple bodies interred inside the same monumental grave.
- Their connection with the territory through which, self-identity is established
and, then, regulated through ties of kinship and common descent.
- The identification of social units’ segments with their ancestors lineages to shape
the tribal identity in periods of autonomy or when perfectly integrated in a state
authority, because is through the connection with death ancestors that group
identity is renewed, on that basis becomes institutionalized, and can guarantee
strong kin ties even when identity is negotiated in varied forms of integration
with diversified socio-cultural agents and social landscapes.
In this last part of the speech
SCARLET WARE ECONOMY
We will take as a starting point two concepts which pertain mainly to economic anthropology and to
the analysis of economic systems, be they pre-industrial (domestic mode of production, after
Polanyi 1957: he saw how the economy was “embedded” with the social matrix of a given society
in antiquity) or capitalistic.
Exchange: is not a by-product of the mutual valuation of objects, but its source (Appadurai 1986: 4;
Simmel 1907: The Philosophy of Money), which is like to say that only with exchange is possible to
establish an economic value.
Commodity: a good, or a service, which is exchangeable (Oxford Dictionary)
“any thing intended for exchange” (Appadurai 1986: 9)
These definitions have applicability, as said, both in pre-industrial societies and in capitalistic ones,
but under the sphere of exchange we find many sub-categories which usually are considered to not
be suitable for analysis of ancient economy. In particular we face a dichotomy between gift
exchange and commodities exchange - trade. The discriminant point here is the absence in the
former of a link to money value and in the latter of the social face-to-face interactions. But even if
the two systems seems to share nothing, if excluded the final result, an exchange of things; I will
use here a definition of gift exchange which identify parallels in the strategies employed by both
systems in the creation of goods circulation, i.e. exchange.
The definition owes to Bourdieu its central aspect, namely the recognition of a shared spirit between
gift and commodity exchange:
“practice never ceases to conform to economic calculation even when it gives every appearance of
disinterestedness by departing from the logic of interested calculation and playing for stakes that
are non-material and not easily quantified” (Bourdieu 1977: 177).
So Bourdieu is saying us that in pre-industrial economies the social aspects are strictly connected to
the use value given to the object in exchange and that both ancient and modern economies share as
fundamental character the gaining of a profit being it expressed in a money value connected to the
! di !10 13

goods or services, or in non-material values of sociality, hierarchy, rank and status. It results then
that the social is directly connected to the use value given to the object and at the same time it limits
the possibility for its creation because social values and kinship affect use value assessment in
exchange.
So in the analysis of Scarlet Ware society we face two parts of the same unicum, on one side gift
exchange which is directed mainly to the maintenance of social relations over a regional territory
and to the creation of a common sociality and tradition; on the other we have a foreign-trade system
which shaping the sociality of its different elements not through kinship ties, territorial identity and
gift - or reciprocity (more generally), but by economic profit exchange, is able to organize an over
regional sphere of trade. Both these economies are mutually intersected because organized
according to a common functional spirit but structured in opposite manners, as previously
explained.
But if we are able to gain insights for the analysis of an exchange system - be it internal or external
- it should be possible to infer and recognize aspects of social competition, in and between,
societies themselves. But if all this has a general common understanding in anthropological practice
it turns to be quite different when this model is applied in archaeological enquires, particularly
dealing with Scarlet Ware.
Over the years many have been the uses of the definition “luxury items” to describe and categorize
goods with a particular aesthetic, economic or intrinsic value. But I would propose to attach a
definition to Scarlet Ware which focus the significance more on the social aspect of the item than on
its material-artifact value:
“… we [should] regard luxury goods not so much in contrast to necessities, but as goods whose
principal use is rhetorical and social, goods that are simply incarnated signs. […] The necessity to
which they respond is fundamentally political…it might make more sense to regard luxury as a
special register of consumption than to regard them as a special class of thing.” (Appadurai 1986:
38)
So given this definition it appears evident the link we can bridge between the luxury aspect and the
gift exchange in the organization of Scarlet Ware society and culture. At the same time we can adopt
material culture - pained pottery - as marker of an external trade system based upon commodities
and necessities exchange (so goods and services). This to say that Scarlet Ware assumes a variety of
(social) meanings at the beginning of III millennium BC, but if its true, how Renfrew says, that
kinship and exchange are both means of integration (1986: 151) then is easily detected how this
polychrome pottery should be considered vehicle of social commonality, tied to values of kinship
and gift exchange which stands as material expression of a unitary cultural construct. Through the
social and political values attached to Scarlet Ware as a luxury good, by mean of the former
definition, we are able to extrapolate the basic principle which connect this pottery to the cultural
parameters over cited: sociality.
Sociality which, as we have seen before, stands as primary in the definition of gift exchange in a
society, because in the gift we find expression of a common reciprocity (mutuality of beings, after
Sahlins 1972) and of face-to-face interaction which is a fundamental way of integration.
Sociality which is basic aspect of kinship ties, specially in dealing with dimorphic social structures
based on lineage systems, ranks and mobility. Specifically because, through kinship, these social
systems find their best attributes for integration and, because, through a kinship tie is built up, and
structured, the way of production, consumption and exchange. But Scarlet Ware finds its correlation
to kinship also because it is the material expression of social agency in the relation to a given
territory and a commonality of traits, of which kinship and ancestors are mutual expressions,
resulting in increasing integration both social and economic. More over, when connected to kinship
and ancestorship the fundamental value typified by Scarlet Ware is tradition, engine for the built up
of a shared sociality (kinship) and means of a renewed structuring of cultural ties through ancestors
! di !11 13

worship. So center of that “mutuality of beings” basic in gift exchange and means of political
necessity (i.e. integration).
But, if integration should be rightly considered a standing function of polychrome Scarlet Ware
pottery, it is interesting how it was directly put in essence and the role Scarlet Ware had in
developing forms of integration through time in the region. One of the principal medium is to be
searched in the social structure of the culture and in how it has dealt with the organization of
identity. In fact, if we consider that the basic social elements active in the Diyala at the beginning of
III millennium BC were basically agro-pastoralists representing the dichotomy between sedentary
and nomadic elements, we should pay attention to consider this social environment as an urban
based model which over this dichotomy have been able to constantly re-negotiate identity, kinship,
exchange strategies, production and so on, and has done it with the attributes of a shared sociality,
real or hypothetical, but which served the only central target it needed to, survive and renovate, by
mean of adaptation. In this respect I think we should be considering the active role carried out by
the “circular sites” as part of the reconfigured exploitation by mobile pastoralists of their territory/
landscape. This to mean that at the beginning of 3rd millennium BC, after the collapsed Uruk
network and the split up of this agro-pastoralists elements, the creation of circular sites with an
attraction’s function served the meanings of re-integration for both sectors of the society
(agriculturalist - pastoralists) (Porter in press: 7). To sustain this view comes what Adams has
already pointed out in 1974 about the social organization of the Mesopotamian landscape, he argued
that agriculture and pastoralism are inter-dependent forms of adaptation to the climatic uncertainties
and seasonal oscillations (Adams 1974: 2) so to mean that: the old-fashioned inferences about the
distinctions agriculturalist/pastoralist are more formal than real ones, but mainly that social values,
different from profit ones, had a central role as organizing principles of the society itself, embracing
all aspects of it.
This said, to conclude, the famous expression of Owen Lattimore, according to whom “the pure
nomad is the poor nomad”, so that “mobility and property are in contradiction” (Sahlins 1972: 12)
seems to be invalidated because: in a given cultural system, when mobility is mediated by
continuous negotiation of identity and the renewal of sociality through tradition (= ancestors) and
kinship, it results in the construction of social-economic cooperation which guarantee incremented
hierarchy, status, rank, in a word, stratification; by means of kin-based transactions and external
trade (= commodities exchange).
To this we can attribute the structuring paths which will shape Scarlet Ware economic-sociality
during the beginning of III millennium and which will lead by ED 2 period to an institutionalized
leadership and a centralized-urban economy - household mode of production - in which identity
became structurally tied to the cultural paradigm at play, and need not to be negotiated anymore.
! di !12 13

! di !13 13