different types of egalitarian societies

7/27/2019 Different Types of Egalitarian Societies

1/27

Different Types of Egalitarian Societies and the Development of Inequality in EarlyMesopotamiaAuthor(s): Marcella FrangipaneReviewed work(s):Source: World Archaeology, Vol. 39, No. 2, The Archaeology of Equality (Jun., 2007), pp. 151-176Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40026651.Accessed: 31/01/2012 22:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Taylor & Francis, Ltd.is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World

Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancishttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40026651?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40026651?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis


2/27

Differentypes of egalitarian societiesand the development of inequalityinearly MesopotamiaMarcella Frangipane

AbstractThere s no singleform hatequality akes n past societies. ome societies, orizontal galitariansystems, anifestbsenceofhierarchy,ut n other ocietiesverticalgalitarianystems)rivilegedstatus oexistswith ubstantial quality.A detailed omparison f the Halaf culture f northernMesopotamia nd easternAnatolia with he Samarra and Ubaid cultures f central nd southernMesopotamia,examining ettlementattern, conomy nd burialcustoms, evealstheways thevectors fegalitarianismnthese wocontrastingystemsnd enableskeyvariables etermininghenature nd distributionfequality o be distinguished.

KeywordsEquality;hierarchyettlement;ouses;social systems; conomy;Halaf;Ubaid.

'Equality' and 'inequality': are theyusefulconceptsforclassifying ocieties?The definitionf theconceptof equality', omparedand contrastedwith ts opposite'inequality',s in itself crucial ssuewhenseeking o understand he natureand thestructuref socialrelationsystems.t is obviousthat here s a radicaldifferenceetweensocieties fequals and societies funequals.Thesecategoriesrenot, however,ufficientformaking n analytical escriptionfsocieties, onsideringhe considerable ifferencesthatexist between ariousforms nd spheres f equality nd inequality,which n factreflectifferentypes f societies fequals orunequals.A morethoroughxamination fthese istinctionsouldalsohelptoexplain hedifferentaths longwhich hesedifferingsocialsystems ave evolved.The crucial importance f the 'equality/inequality'arameters s manifestlylearwhen hey reused nanalysingnddefining ore simple' nd closed' societies hanours,

13 Routledqe WorldArchaeology Vol. 39(2): 151-176 TheArchaeology fEqualityl\ Tayior Franciscroupoutledqe 2007 Taylor Francis ISSN 0043-8243print/470- 375 onlineDOI: 10.1080/00438240701249504


3/27

152 Mar el a Frangipanei.e. ess ntrinsicallyonnectedwith ther ocial,economic ndpolitical ystemshan s thecase with complex contemporaryocietieswhich de facto formpart of one single'globalized' world. The enormouscomplexity f the ways in which contemporarycapitalist-typeocieties perate nd arestructured akes tvery omplicatednddifficultto analyse simultaneouslyll thecomponentsnd all thesocial,economic nd politicalrelations t work within he system,which are the subjectof specializeddisciplines.Amongotherthings,n a modern apitalist ociety henatureof relations etween tsmembersmaynotbe the ame nevery phere,ndtheprevalencefequality r nequalityalso variesdepending ponthe reas concernedfor xample, ublicversus rivate). hereis obviouslya basic and remarkable conomic nequality n modernsocieties,whichhowever lashes with the ideologicalneed for- and, in some sectors, he substantialpursuitof - social equality,achievedthroughgeneralized ifestylesnd behaviouralpatterns t mass level. Social equality s itself lso a real requirementf thecapitalisteconomic ystem, hichdemands n ever- idening ase of consumers'. he mostbasicquestion o be askedis thereforQ:qual and unequalin respect f what?Thisis a highlycomplexpicture, nd thesimple qualityversus nequality riterions a basicmeans ofunderstandinghe distinctiveeaturesnd dynamics fcontemporaryocieties oes notwork.The equality versus inequalitycriteriondoes, conversely, ecome a meaningfulparameterwhen t definesnd accountsfor ll thebasicrelationswithin given ociety,i.e. the relations hatgivethesociety orm nd structure. he potential fferedy theconcepts fequality nd inequalityanbe clearly eenbytracinghem acktoperiods nwhichtheywerehistoricallyrucial,that s to say, to whentheprevalence f one orother type of relationscharacterizedong and formative tages in the historyofsocieties nd in which he hift rom ne of these ystemsf relations o theothermarkedthe primary, nd often rreversible,ransitioneading to the emergence f the firsthierarchical ocieties and power structures.Addressing primaryprocesses,whichmeans goingbackwards to the formative hases and the origins'of the phenomenawhich are wholly unknown and extremelyremote to us, makes the analysismethodologicallyifficultthematerial ndicators f thephenomena,mostof which reonlyfragmentarynd partial,have to be very arefullyonsidered).Yet the ongtimeperiod involved makes it possible to gain a betterunderstandingf the essentialcharacteristicsf differentypesof societyby comparing heirdistinctiveeatures ndobserving he changesthat occurredduringthe transitional rocesses FeinmanandNeitzel 1984: 78; Feinman 1991: 229-30). A diachronic tudyof thephenomena lsomakes t morefeasible o investigatehereasonsforchangesand thedynamics ehindthem,highlightinghe role played by the various social, economic,political andideologicalcomponentsn determining, aintaining r subverting givensystem frelationswithin society.Differentgalitarianystems:hecase ofearlyMesopotamianocietiesEqualityand inequality re not univocalconcepts, ven n early ocieties, or there remany differentorms of equality, ust as there are of inequality,which,despite


4/27

Differentypes fegalitarianocieties 153appearances,reveal differentystems f social relationsand economic and politicalorganizationsfthecommunities. ne initial nd fundamentalistinctionhat wouldlike to draw here, and which is appropriatefor the sixth- and fifth-millenniumMesopotamiancommunities ith which shall be dealing shortly,s between otallyegalitarian ocieties horizontal galitarian ystems) nd basicallyegalitarian ocietieswhich are ideologically nd politicallyrepresented y their chiefmembers verticalegalitarian ystems).n theformerase,in addition o the absence ofdifferencesetweenresource istributionndaccess, ll themembersf thecommunity ere ssentiallyf thesame statusand decision-makingasks werehorizontally istributed oth within achgroup bysex and age orbyfunction religiousmediators,lected hiefs,warriors)ndbetween related' communitiesn a given territoryby means of flexible nlargedinstitutionsnd periodiccommunalevents,such as sodalities,assemblies,religiousceremonies, easts, tc.) accordingto a model that Lucy Mair (1962) called 'diffusegovernment'. onversely,n the vertical galitarian ystem, ubstantial qualityandeconomic elf-relianceere ccompanied ya systemfsocialandkinship elationswhichgave and legitimized kind of privilegedtatus to certainmembers f thecommunitydepending pontheir enealogical osition, rue rpresumed,ntitlinghem orepresentthe ommunitynd takeup itsgovernance. heserelationshipsit hewell-knownconicalclan' model Kirchhoff959). In thesesocieties, nlikethe formerype, he role of themoreor ess extended ouseholdgroups layed very mportantart, ndmembershipfthefamily as more mportanthanmembershipf thegroup s a whole.These societieshave been oftendefined s 'rank societies'or 'chiefdoms' Flannery1994: 104-5).However, lthoughheresconsiderable ariationwithin he ategoryEarle 1987,1991),suggest hat societieswhichdo not showanyactual system fgraduated anking' r arank ystemffectingheeconomic ndpolitical elationsnd daily ivesofthemembersof thecommunityhouldnot be called ranksocieties', venthough heremaybe 'somedegree f heritableocialranking'Earle 1991:1). Social systems ith vertex re not allof the ametype, ndsome ofthem hould,nmyopinion, e consideredo be a variant ftheegalitarianocieties.The archaeologicalinformation n the Mesopotamian earliestfullyagriculturalsocieties howsthatthetwocontrastingystemsfegalitarian ocieties escribed boveareto be seen s different odelsofsocial, conomic ndpolitical tructureshich re notin a chronologicalnd evolutionaryuccession. t is, ofcourse,verydifficulto explainhow andwhy omekinship elationships ere tructurednonemanner ather han ntheother.And that uestion s evenmoredifficulto answerntheparticularasewe shall bedealingwithhere o provide n archaeological xampleof the second model:namely heearlyUbaid societiesUbaid 0-2) of LowerMesopotamia,of whose origins nd directantecedents ehaveno clearknowledge.We shall,however,ry o show that hetype fsocialrelationswe willbe hypothesizingorthesocieties onsidered elow are perfectlyconsistent ith he ype f subsistenceconomy stablishedn theregions fMesopotamiathat hey ccupied.I shall now attempt o analysethe Mesopotamiansocietiesof the sixthand fifthmillennia C,1 ryingo takea comprehensivend structuralpproachto interpretheircharacteristicsnd evolutionary ynamics.From the data we possess today, whileincompletes are all archaeological ata,we can attempthis nalysis f both henorthern


5/27

154 MarcellaFrangipaneand southernocieties, epresentedespectivelyythe o-calledHalaf culturen NorthernMesopotamiaand EasternAnatoliaand the Samarra and Ubaid culturesn the alluvialplainsof Central nd SouthernMesopotamia. n both cases I shall use theconcepts fequality nd inequality nd theirpossiblevariations s a useful nalysis ool. It is mycontention hatthediffering,nd to a certain xtent pposite, tructuringf thesetwotypes fsociety, eferringespectivelyo the two models haveproposed thehorizontalegalitarianystemnd the verticalgalitarian ystem),ie at the basis of thefar-reachingchanges hat ed to the ultural emise f theformerHalaf) andthe ransformationfthelatter Ubaid) into the hierarchical,nd increasinglyifferentiated,ate Chalcolithicsocieties ntil heemergencef thegreat unequal' Uruk civilization.

Horizontal galitarianystems:heHalaf cultureThe groups belonging o the so-calledHalaf cultureoccupieda vast territory hichcomprised otonly heSyro-Iraqi ezira rea but also thehillside ones ntheTaurusandAntitaurus oothillsnsouth-easternurkey,mostof themountainous egions f EasternAnatoliarunningrom ake Van to theprovince f Karamanmaras nd theTigrisbasinalmost s far s theBaghdadregion Fig. 1).The wholeof thisvast area wasnotoccupied

Figure TheNearEastwithhemain itesmentionednthe ext. he hreereas fHalaf, amarraandUbaidculturesre ndicated ith ifferenthades fgrey.


6/27

Differentypes fegalitarianocieties 155simultaneouslyythis ulture utwas theobviousresult fa gradualprocess fexpansionby the Halaf groups from the originalJezira core outwards n various directionsand towards differentcological zones, in both the north/north-westerlynd thesouth/south-easterlyirections.t was thisdecisive endencyoexpand ntonewterritoriesthat onstituted major distinguishingeature fthese ocieties.The quality f thearchaeological ocumentation n the ifeoftheHalaf communitiesvariesconsiderably rom ne regionto another,whereresearchhas also had differenthistoriesnd has beenconductedwith ifferingegrees f ntensity.et sufficientvidenceexists o be able to attempt reconstructionf thewayof life n thesevillages, nd themannernwhich heywere rganized,nd toaim atconducting structuralnalysis f thebasic features f these societies. Here I shall tryto follow a number of constantparameters,which shall subsequently ake up again forcomparativepurposes,foranalysinghe close and widely ifferingbaid communities.1 Smallunstable illagesHalaf villageswere almostalwayssmall, n some cases very mall,and theywereoftentemporarilybandoned and subsequently eoccupied ollowing tradition hatbegan nthepreviousHassuna period.A very bvious case in point s the site at YarimTepe inJebelSinjar.A few solatedexamplesof what seem to have been largeHalaf villagesinsouth-easternurkey,uchas Domuztepe, ntheKahramanmaras rovince Campbellet al. 1999;Carter t al. 2003),orKazane, intheUrfaplain Bernback t al. 1999), houldbe more closelyexaminedafterthe excavations re completed nd the reportsfullypublished.2 he exceptional ize of these ites uggests heymight avebeen the result ftheshiftingf the nhabited reas during relativelyong periodofoccupation.3 n theotherhand,thesesitesmight lso indicate he differentehaviours f some Anatoliancommunitiesocated n well-wateredertile lainswhoseproductivity ayhave allowedlarger oncentrationsfpopulation.2 'Scattered'tandard wellingtructuresThedwellingsntheHalafvillages thewell-known holoi-liketructures were ll quitesimilar nd circularn shape,somesimple nd otherswith ectangularnnexes Fig. 2a).The frequentariationsn the dimensionsnd constructioneatures f the tholoi o notseemto havebeen due to differencesf mportancerhierarchyetween hehouses,butweremore likelydue to the differentses to whichtheywereput in domestic ife(Frangipane1996; Forest 1996). Some wereperhapsused as homes,pure and simple(probablythe largestones), others seem to have been used for specific ctivities(cooking r other ctivities), hileotherswereused for torage urposes structures iththick ayersof plasteron thefloors nd walls,absent n the othertholoi, robablytocreate an insulatingsurface)4 Akkermans 1993). There was no regular distri-butionpatternfor these various structures,arge or small, in the settled pace, andconstructionsxhibiting ifferenteatureswereall mixedtogether,ust as iftheyweredifferentrchitectural reas for performing ifferent omestic functions n eachhousehold.


7/27

156 MarcellaFrangipane3 PoorlydistinguishablendividualwellingsThis leads us to the overallorganization f the inhabited ites,where thehaphazardscatteringf structuresn thevillagewas combinedwith n intense se of theoutdoorareas (Fig. 2b). Both minor tructuresuch as smallreceptacles avebeenfound, s wellas rows of low parallel walls that were perhapsused to supportraised platforms

Figure Dwellingsnd ettlementsf heHalaf ulture:- variousypesf holoi rom rpachiyah,aviTarlasi ndSabiAbyad; - planofYarim epe I, levelV (from reniquet996: l.36);c-planofSabiAbyad,evel (from kkermans993: ig. .12).


8/27

Differentypes fegalitarianocieties 157fordrying roducts, nd smallpitsand tracesof dailygrounduse, such as fireplaces.In the Halaf villages it is extremelydifficult o recognize areas belonging toindividual homes' or individualhouseholds. In other words, little importance sattributedo architecturalecognizability,nd hence o the dentityf ndividual omesticstructures.4 Communalpublic' uildingsInvariousHalafvillages herewere few arger, ectangulartructuresperhaps nlyoneor twopervillage, ccordingo extant ocumentation whichmay ndicate hat heywerecommunity uildings sed by the chiefs or public' functionssuch as the arge burnthouse' at Arpachiya)Mallowan and Rose 1935)or for ommunitytoragepurposes, ssuggested y the arge buildingwith eriesof small rooms at Sabi Abyad (Akkermans1993;Akkermans 996) Fig. 2c).5 Collectivetorage ndegalitarian edistributionThe communitytorageand collectivemanagement f goods was probablyanotherfeature f Halaf society.Even thoughwe have no direct videnceof this n theHalafperiod proper, t is neverthelessuggestedby the presenceof unequivocal signs ofcollective tores n the communities hat had previously ccupied the Jezira n theseventhmillennium C (theUmm Dabaghiyah-TellSotto and Hassuna cultures)withwhich he aterHalaf groups hareda very imilar rganizationnd subsistenceystem(Frangipane1996:51-87). Largecommon tores, r structureshatmight e interpretedas suchaccording o their rchitecturaleatures, ave beenfound,n the first alfoftheseventhmillennium C, at Umm Dabaghiyah and, in the second half of the seventhmillennium,t YarimTepe I and in what s known s the burntvillage'at Sabi Abyad(Kirkbride 974,1975;Merpert ndMunchaev1993a;Akkermans 996;Akkermans ndDuistermaat 996) Fig. 3). At this atter itehundreds f cretulae5 ith he mpressionsofmore thansixty-fiveifferentealswere foundconcentrated ithin he arge storagebuildings, articularlyn one of the smallrooms, n whichtheyhad beenpiled up andpreservedfter emoval Duistermaat1996). This pointsto the existence f what wasalready a sophisticated dministrativeystem,probably intended to control theredistributionf food stored in common by the community Akkermans andDuistermaat1996; Frangipane2000). Confirmation f the fact that food was thecommodityistributedhere omesfrom ythefindingn some ofthe small cells n theSabi Abyad storeof large quantitiesof charredgrain.The prevailing pplicationofsealings o vessels nd baskets at least n some casesveryprobablybasket ids on jars(Ferioliand Fiandra 1983; Frangipane t al. in press:ch. 2) - may indicate he likelyconservationof food (either grain or elaborated food), and maybe even othercommodities,n containersof various kinds,which were kept for a time in thestorehouse, r arrived herewith thefood to be stored.What is important ere s thepresence fhundreds f cretulae emoved nd putaside in one of thestorerooms, heretheyhavebeenkeptas 'documents' f the transactions erformednderadministrativecontrol, eingwithdrawalsrdeliveryfgoods. Judging ythe mpressionsf numerous


9/27

158 Mar el a Frangipane

Figure3 Below: thestorebuilding omplexes f theEarlyPotteryNeolithic t Sabi Abyad (level6) (fromVerhoeven nd Kranendonk, ig. .7, in Akkermans 996).The differenthading fgreyindicates hevarying oncentrations f cretulaen therooms,with darker onerepresentinghehigher uantities.Above: some iconographic roupsof seal designsrecognized rom he cretulaefound n thesebuildingsdrawings electedfromDuistermaat1996: figs5.3 and 5.4).


10/27

Differentypes f egalitarianocieties 159differenteals on the cretulae nd the fact thatall the clay used at Sabi Abyad wassourced ocally,the cretulaemust have referred o operations arriedout locally by alarge number of different embers of the community. ince these were Neolithicsocieties t an early tageof the ullestablishmentf theproductiveconomy nd withevident ignsof social and economic quality, he redistributionystemmusthave beenone of egalitarianredistributionFrangipane 2000). In other words, the goodsenteringhe storemusthave been the samegoods thatwere aterremoved nd returnedto their roducers, r at all events o the members f thecommunity ho wereentitledto them.Furthermore,he similarity etween the differentroups of seal designs,comprisingery pecificconographic ets Fig. 3), each of whichwas characterized ytherepetitionf a particularmotif,ndicates hat heseal-holders ithdrawinghegoodsmusthavebeen members nd representativesf differentouseholds r clans,each onesymbolized y a dominantmotif, erhapsa kind of identity ymbol.A system f thiskind does not entail accumulation,but was actually intended as a means ofredistributingoods in an 'equitable'manner n situationsn which,for some reason,it became necessary r advisable to pool staple commodities r food surpluses.Nohoarding r appropriation f thegoods was thereforeermittedn thatsystem,whichwas a trulyredistributiveystemn the literal sense of that term, nd not with themeaninggivento it by Polanyi (1957) and his school to describe rchaic centralizedeconomies.One indirectlue to whatwe presume o have been the continuationf thecollectivemanagementffood in Halaf society omes not onlyfrom he overallarrangementfthe settlementsnd their conomicorganizationwithin heir erritory,utalso from hefrequencyfthefindingsf seals at all theexcavated ites nd in theburials, rom hatperiod.Halaf seals are verydistinctive:heyare mostlygeometricwithquite simpledesigns,whichare therefore ot easily distinguishablerom ach other,but theyhadvery omplex ndvaried hapes,whichwere heirmostdistinctiveeaturesvonWickede1990) Fig. 4a). More thanbeingmarkers f ndividualsn theadministration,hey eemto have relatedto groups of individuals haringcultural, thnicor kinshipbonds,probably epresentedyone ormorepersons n thewithdrawalperations.n additionto theseals,therewereovoid-shapedretulae,with nd without cordpassing throughthem,bearingseal impressionsFig. 4b). Unfortunately e do not know the exactcontextn which heywerefound, uttheymusthave been inked o administrativectsof somekind, uthenticating transactionn some kind of document.n thattypeofsocial and economic ystem, hichwas so similar o theearlyPotteryNeolithicone inthesameregionsphasesofUmm-Dabaghiyah-SottondHassuna), it s quite ikely hatany formof administrationn which a control was exercised on the openingsofcontainers y sealing hem nd temporarilyreservinghe evidence f theseoperations(the cretulae)or otherformsof certificationtampedon the clay (the ovoid-shapedcretulae)had to do withmanagingthe egalitarianredistributionf goods that hadpreviously een pooled in common. t is no coincidence hat it was preciselyn thenorthernotteryNeolithic ocietieswith ollective tores hat seals and sealings n clayand chalk were firstused, while these were absent from the sixth-millenniumSouthernMesopotamian societies based on familiar organizationand practisingdomestic torage.


11/27

160 MarcellaFrangipane

Figure Halaf administrativebjects: - various hapesof seals selected rom on Wickede1990:ns.200, 190, 166, 171, 147, 161, 150, 156,164);6 -an ovoidhanging retula ndthe ealappliedon it(from on Wickede1990: ns. 54 and 57).

6 Integratedmixed conomies ndgroup ooperationThe economicbasis of thesegroups eemsto have been a combined griculture/livestockeconomy rom heearliest ccupations f theUpper Mesopotamiaplains,wherehuntingcontinued o play an important ole,as evidenced rom hepresence, till n theHalafperiod, fvillages pecialized nthehuntingf theonager nd thegazelle,both ofwhichwerevery ommon nthoseregionsseeUmmQseir, n theKhabour, nd Shams-ed-Din,on theEuphrates). he case ofthe arlier iteof UmmDabaghiyah Kirkbride 974,1975)reflects modelofregional conomicntegrationndcooperation hatprobably ontinuedto work hroughouthewhole ofthesixthmillennium. histype fsubsistenceconomy,aimed at theexploitation fmanyand diverse esources,musthave been linked o theconditions hat were createdwhen the first ommunities itha fully roductivemixedeconomy extensively ccupiedthe Jezira fter he so-called crisis' of the Pre-PotteryNeolithic, t thebeginning f theseventhmillennium C. Theyfoundthemselvesn avaried environment f steppe, alluvial plains and foothills,offering wealth ofopportunities, ifferingrom one ecological zone to another,at a time when anincreasinglyxpanding griculture as perhaps n crisisprecisely ecause of itsgrowth(over-farminghe land, population growthfollowing he tighter ontrolover foodavailability).This period coincided withthe crisis of themostflourishingultures fPre-PotteryeolithicB in the Levant and the Taurusregion, nd it must ertainly ave


12/27

Differentypes f egalitarianocieties 161been a timen which ubsistenceroduction ystems erebeing eorganized. heneedsofwhatwas probably developing griculture ust lso have beencombinedwith he newneedsderivingrom ranshumanceracticesnpastoralism, hichbynowhad become amajor economic activity.The considerable ncrease in population size, evidencedarchaeologicallyrom he ncreasing umber fsites, nd thefact hat n these reas thepossibility f practising ain-fedgricultureeems to have curbed thedevelopment firrigationechniquesnd othermeansof ntensifyinggricultureroductivity usthaveled to an exploitationf a varietyfdifferentesources,ncludinguch traditional nes ashunting.The group specialization,with communities evoted,at least partially, o certainsubsistencectivities,ither ermanentlyr seasonally,within ne and the same socio-economic nd culturalystem,musthave made tnecessaryo ntegratehevariousgroupswithinhe erritoryor xchanging roducts n a regular asis,fosteringhedevelopmentof stableforms f cooperationbetween ommunities nd between hemembers f thesamecommunity.fpartof a villagepopulationhad to be awayfor certain eriodoftimeforpastoralism r hunting urposes, hecommunity ad to guarantee hat theiragriculturalroductswere ooked after orthem nd would be availableto them t theright ime.Evenifan economicdichotomy ad occurred etween ifferentommunitieswhich pecialized n a permanentasis,thewholesocietywouldat all events ave had toguaranteethe regularexchange and redistributionf commodities.This kind ofproductionystemustifiesnd explains he existence f communal torehousesnd thepractice f administeredoodredistribution.In this ype fsociety ooperation revailed vercompetition.7 Extendedocialcohesion nddiffuseommunityovernmentThe need forclose economic ooperation veran extensive erritoryad to be coupledwith the need for social cohesionamong an increasinglyargenumberof residentialcommunitiesreated ytheconstant plitting-offfgroupswhichdeparted o foundnewvillages (Akkermans nd Schwartz2003: 149-53). This was the usual responsetopopulationgrowth n highly galitarian ommunities, hich could not supportveryextensive roups n thesame settlement.6he vast territorialxpansionof Halaf cultureduring hesixthmillenniumnd the close cultural inship nd similarityn all aspectsofthematerial ulturebetween henumerousgroups occupying hishuge territory,venthose ocatedvery arfrom ach other, re theproofofthecloserelationshipshatweremaintained etween heoriginal ommunitiesnd thenewly reated ommunities,nd atall events videnceof theirneed to affirm he same cultural dentity. uch a cohesivesystemmight averequired orms fdecision-makingoordination t various evels,byestablishinglexiblenlargedinstitutions',aryingn breadth nd stability ccording othe typeof decisionsto be taken,and creating ccasions formeeting. ome of thewidespread ormsknown to ethnologistsre sodalitiesbetween ribes nd ceremoniesperformedncommon.n this ase the ceremonies'werenotcommunal ituals isplaying'highly isualand evocative, ominantymbolism',s in thePre-potteryeolithicB (cultbuildings, telae,statues,masks) (Verhoeven 002: 8), but theyprobablyconsistedofmeetings,easts nd other ocialregulationnd cohesionmechanisms.


13/27

162 MarcellaFrangipaneThe moststrikingvidence f theclose links between he Halaf communitiess theirsimilarhighly ophisticated aintedpottery, hichcirculatedwidely,mostlywithopen

shapes, nd hence s objects ntheir wnright ather han s containers or ransportinggoods.Althoughtappearsto be a 'luxury' roduct,ts distribution as notrestrictedoparticularnvironmentsrcategories fpeople.A greatdeal has been writtenbout thisware and itssignificance.f twas madebywomen, he circulation f Halafpotterymayhavebeen a signofwidespread xogamy ractices Forest 1996)oritmayhave beenusedforgift rexchange tmeetings,eremoniesr otherointactivities. ne things certain:thispottery,nwhoseproductiono much nergynd technicalkillswere nvested,musthave been a verypowerful ultural dentitymarker, nd a signofmembershipangingbeyond ndividual ouseholds, lans or tribalgroups, nd linking ogetherhe numerousHalaf communitiesn a single ultural ystemnd to a singleorigin Akkermans 993:318-21;Verhoeven 002: 10).8 Equality nthe unerarydeologyThe absence of any differencesf rank or social statusevidenced rom he settlementsand variousaspectsof thematerial ulture s also reflectedn the burialswhich, lbeitnot frequentlyocumented, ave been found n varioussites,mostlywithin r on themargins f thesettlements,nd in one case - YarimTepe I in JebelSinjar- also in akindof extramuralemeteryn the summit f a smalltellpreviouslynhabitedn theHassuna period,not far fromthe Halaf settlement t Yarim Tepe II (Merpert ndMunchaev 1993a, 1993b). It is interestingo note that,whereasthe burials nsidethesettlements eremostly f nfants nd uveniles,ntheYarimTepe I cemeteryheywerealmostall ofadults, uggestinghat the dead weretreated ifferentlyccording o theirage. But at the same time hisdifferencef treatmenteems not to havebeenrigid ndgeneralized, ecause some adultshave also been foundburied nthe settlements ithoutanyparticular istinctiveeatures.Amongthe burials n the YarimTepe II settlement,forexample,therewere various differentypesof burial,ranging rom implepitstocomplexpitsforming kind ofmortuaryhamber, nd differenturialpractices, rominhumation o cremationto cranial burials, and in each of these cases there areindividuals f differentge groups,mostly uveniles,but also adults.Furthermore,hecremations nd cranialburialswereconcentratedn one particular artof thesite.Thisseparationn thecemeteryrea, together ith hepresence f some sumptuary oods',has been interpretedy Flannery s possibleevidence f burials of children fhighly-rankedfamilies'1999: 52). It is, however, ossible, ccording o all the other vidence,that he differentituals nd funeraryustomsweredue to thefact hat hedeceasedwasa member fa differentlan or kinship roup,withdifferentrigins nd traditions,utnow all forming art of the great Halaf culturalfamily.The separateburials ofcraniums,moreover, hichwerefound n the earlier evelsof YarimTepe II and also atArpachiyah, elongedto a widespread nd ancient radition atingback to the nitialstabilization fsedentaryommunitiesnPre-potteryeolithicB. Craniumburialshavealso beenfound n thewesternmostegionof the Halaf cultural rea at DomuztepeontheKahramanmaras lainin Turkey Campbellet al. 1999).Numerous kullshad beenburiedhere n a huge pitwith complexritual, erhapsre-exhumingodiespreviously


14/27

Differentypes f egalitarianocieties 163buried, fwhich fewdisarticulatedones have beenpreserved,omeshowing races fburning, erhapsdue to particular itesor to partialcremations.What is interestingabout thisburialpit, partfrom he similarities ith ome ritualpracticesnotherHalafburials, s thefact hatthiswas a collective urialwith ritual hatmusthave involvedthewholecommunity,r a broad sectionof it,recalling ustoms ypical f theearliestNeolithic ocieties.Remarkable ifferencesfwealth nd statuscannot be detected ven n thefuneraryofferingshich,n Halaf burials, re generally airlyimited, r evenabsentaltogether,and do notvarymuchbetween ifferentypes f burials nd ritualsHijara 1978;Oates1978).The objectsmostcommonly ound re ceramic essels, ften ainted, eads madeof differenttones and stone ornaments, he latter most frequentlyssociated withjuveniles.But there resometimes lso flint r obsidian ools,boneobjects, tonevessels,in some cases made of alabaster, nd figurines. owhere have therebeen foundanyparticularoncentrationsfofferingsr special inksbetween ome kindoffunerary iftsandthevarious itual nd burial ypes ecordedntheHalaf sites.Thefinding,nonecase,of a stonemace-head t YarimTepe and thepresence f a seal in two other urials onecremation urialat YarimTepe and one adult nhumationn the earliest evels at TepeGawra- suggestnly possible eferenceo a rolethat he ndividual oncernedmayhaveperformedn life.The Halaf society,aken s a whole, ppearsto havebeen a society fequals, resultingfromhe ntegrationnto heSyro-Iraqi ezira egion f differentlder raditions ornebyvarious ommunitiesrobably rom ifferentrigins from hewesternmostroups ftheSabi Abyadculture n theBalikh,to theeasternmostroupsof the Hassuna cultures,which n turn ookroot n the evenearlierUmmDabaghiya-Tell ottotraditions). oththecommunities hich ccupiedtheplainand thehilly teppes n thiswideregionn thecourse fthe eventhmillenniumC and the aterHalafcommunities,s I havementionedabove, probablypractised subsistenceconomybased on theexploitation f variousresources,reating systemasedoncooperationetweenhedifferentroups.This seemsto resemblehetype fsociety escribed yFlannery s 'one inwhich isk s assumed tthe level of the group' (Flannery 1993: 110). Cooperationand competitionredynamics hatare bothpresentn all societies, ut the clearprevalence f one over theother ffectshebasicrelationshat xistwithin hem nd determinesheir onfigurationand structure.In additionto the need foreconomic ntegration,notherfactor f a morepoliticalorganizationalharactermust lso haveplayed decisive ole n theconfigurationftheHalaf societies: heneedforthesecommunities, hichJ. D. Foresthas quitecorrectlydefined s 'segmentarygriculturalomestic ommunities'1996), to move aroundanddivide s a result fstrong nd continuouslyncreasing emographic ressure, robablybecauseofthehealthy onditions f their ubsistenceconomy.I think hatthere s an importantbservation o be made at thispoint:thestronglyegalitariantructurend the ikelyackofelites,whetherf an exclusively olitical/socialtype leaders egitimizedytheir rivilegedtatus), n theorganizationalystem fthesecommunitiesmusthave been thereasonwhy t was impossible orthem o respondtodemographicgrowthby creatingmore complex communitymanagement ystems.Strictly galitarian ocietiesof thiskind do not usually develop into more stratified


15/27

164 MarcellaFrangipanesocieties, ecause, think,he ociety eproductionechanisms, hich realwayspowerfulin every ocial system,whichnecessarilyends to reproduce nd preservetself,mustmaintain otal social and economic quality nd thehorizontal istributionfpowers, oavoid altering he nature of the system nd throwingt into crisis. The horizontalegalitarianystem,n otherwords, ends o remainunchanged.The responset madetodemographic rowthnd expansion,nthe case ofthe Halaf communities, as probablyserialsegmentationnd the creation f newvillages, s evidenced rchaeologicallyromthe gradual territorialxpansionof thatculture,with the resultthatintegrationndcohesion mechanismsbetween the increasingly umerousand widely spaced com-munities ad to strengthenhemselves,norder o maintain heunityndidentityf thesegroups.

Vertical galitarian ystems:heSamarra-Early baid culturesThe features f theearlycommunities hatoccupiedthe alluvialplains in central ndsouthernMesopotamia ppeartohave differedadically. he first theSamarra ultureemergedntheBaghdad region round hemid-seventh illenniumC,while heHassunaculturewas becoming stablished o thenorth,nd the second theEarlyUbaid culture(Ubaid 0-2)- appeared nthe southtowards he end of the seventhmillennium,oughlycontemporary ith the firstmanifestationsn the north of the Halaf culture.Thesecommunities,ike the northernocieties, lso had a mixedagriculturalnd livestockeconomy,but the environmentalnd climatic onditions n thoseregions, s well asperhapsthe traditional ubsistence rganization nd habits of the hillyflankZagrospopulations romwhich hesegroupshad probably riginated,reated differentayoforganizing agriculturalproduction (which needed, albeit rudimentary, rrigationtechniquesn thoseareas) and differentelationshipsetween heagriculturalistnd thepastoralistcomponentswithin the society.This resulted n a differenterritorialorganization:n theone hand, table nd sedentarygricultural illageswere stablished,also practisingivestock arming, articularly ith argesize animals such as cattle ndpigs Huot 1994:129),and on theother herewereprobably astoralist roupsdedicatedto raising heepand goats,perhaps eparatefrom heagricultural opulation,which relessarchaeologicallyerceptible,nd werehencepresumablymoreunstable nd nomadic(Adams 1981).The social,organizationalnd political tructuref thesecommunitieseemsto havebeenverydifferentrom hecontemporaryalaf groups, o thattheyhaveusuallybeenseen, lmostfrom heir nitial ppearance ntheplain,as rank or stratifiedocietieswitha chiefdom rganizationStein1994;Flannery1999:51). In thispaper,however, willtry o offer possibledifferenteading f the Samarra nd Ubaid societiesn their arlyphases (Ubaid 0-2),which believehave to be considered imply s a differentypeofegalitarian ociety ubdivided nto clearly separatedunits (families) nd based on asystemof kinship,social and economic relations which allowed, legitimated ndprobablyneeded a paramountunit, cting s therepresentativend coordinator f thegroup,butwithout nygraduated anking Akkermans nd Schwartz 003: 178).Thereis no doubt that thesesocietieshad within hem, n embryonic orm, hepotential o


16/27

Differentypes f egalitarianocieties 165develophierarchicaltructures,hichwere, nfact, ubsequentlyeneratednthese amecommunities,ut there s no indication,n myopinion,of an actual hierarchy ithinthem. am goingbeyondFlannery's efinitionf rank societies' s beingdifferentromand notnecessarilyoincidingwith chiefdoms'1999: 51), where hiefdoms ave beentraditionallyefined s polities entrally rganized t a regional evelwith omedegreeof heritable ocial ranking nd economic tratificationEarle 1987,1991: 1). And I amproposingthat,althoughtheyare representednd symbolically uided by a chief,societies with an essentiallyuniformpopulation are basically to be considered'egalitarianwith vertex'.HereI shall be analysinghe various spects hat an be recognizedn the ittle, lbeitsignificant,rchaeological ocumentationrom hese outhernegions, dopting he ameanalytical arameters sed for heHalafculture,norder ohighlighthe similaritiesndthedifferences.he basic characteristicsf the Samarra nd earlyUbaid societiesmaybesummarizeds follows.1 Stablevillages f varyingizesEvenin theearlyphases Samarraand Ubaid 0-2) in thedevelopmentf the central ndsouthernMesopotamian ultures,hevillages ppearedto havebeenquitestableand thepopulation highlysedentary udging from the structures f the houses and thecharacteristicsf thesettlements,hich, n the basis of survey ata, seem to havebeenofvarious izes Adams 1981;Wright 981:323-5).2 LargestandardizedwellingtructuresThe houses that have been excavated so far were large and architecturallytan-dardized, omprisingmodulesthatdividedup the nternal rea into three uitedistinct,parallel sectors which were obviously used for different urposes (Fig. 5a-b).The dimensions f the houses,whichwere too large for a nuclearfamily, nd thesharpdifferenceetween larger entral reawhichwas probably common rea (oftenwith hearth) nd two sidewingsofmore or less symmetricalooms, uggest hat thedomestic structureswere used for an extended family.This inferencecan befurtherupportedby the comparisonwith the verysimilarand betterdocumentedUbaid 3-4houses (Adams and Wright 989:447-9; Roaf 1989: 138-9). In thevillagesdatingbackto theearliest hases Samarraand Ubaid 0-2,seventh o sixthmillennia) osingle welling as so farbeen attested s standing ut from heothersn terms fspecialdimensionsrfeaturesFig. 5c).3 The evidentrchitecturalecognizabilityfthe ndividualwellingsEach ofthe ndividual ouseswas architecturallyelldistinguishednd defined clearlyrecognizablend highly istinctive omestichouseholdarea in comparisonwith ll theothers. his structurefthesettlement,ragmentedntoseparated nits, s confirmedytheveryfewtraces of activities utsidethedwellings. he most importantocial unitwouldthereforeeem to havebeen thefamily,nd not thegroupas a whole Flannery


17/27

166 MarcellaFrangipane2002:431), eventhough heboundary f thevillage tselfwas probably lso very learlydefined,s in the case oftheSamarravillage t Tell es-Sawwan, inged ya wall and atrenchBreniquet 991) Fig. 5c).

Figure Houses ndsettlementf he amarra ndearly baid ulturessixthmillenniumC): -one oftheTelles-Sawwan ouses romevel; b- the econstructionftheUbaid0 house tTellOueilifrom uot1994: 19); - the ell s-Sawwanillagefrom reniquet991: ig. );thehousewith concentrationfchildrenurials ndert s ndicated ith hegreyolour.


18/27

Differentypes f egalitarianocieties 167


19/27

168 MarcellaFrangipaneCroppingwas also coupledwith herearing f arge ivestockcattle ndpigs)and, nthefoothills,oatsand sheep,whilefishing as also importantnthe coastalareas.Very

smallplacewas left o huntingn the owlands.The diversity f resourcesfrom the varyingmicro-environmentsnd the variableagriculturalpotential of the various plots of land, combined with the assumedfamily-based inship tructure f thesecommunities,must have fostered ompetitionrather han cooperation etween he groups. Specialization mongdifferentroups nwhat was not a particularly ast territory,nd in an internally ompetitive ocio-economicenvironment,robablyencouraged he emergence f a central oordinationauthority.7 Politicalcohesion: illagemembershipndreferenceo an ideologicalreligiousauthority?There is no evidenceof any extended inks over a wide territory.ven thoughthesesocieties roduced richly ecorated ainted ottery, hichmight lso have worked s anidentitymarker,tmarkedout theseculturesn terms f smallergeographical reas incomparisonwith heHalafiangroups therewas a cleardistinction,or xample, etweencentral nd southernMesopotamia)and circulated o verydistant erritoriesnlyto alesser egree, robably s occasionalexchange rgift.t ispossible hatmembershipf thegroupwas expressedbove all in terms fmembershipf thevillage nd belongingo itsreal or symbolicauthorities',nd byreferenceo some commonreligious deology nd acommonplace in whichritualswereperformed.8 Equality ndgroupreferenceo a founder' amily n the unerarydeologyThe funerary itual is not evidenced n the early phases of this period in LowerMesopotamia,butcemeteries ave been discovered t Ur and Eridudatingback to laterdevelopmentsf theUbaid culturen the fifthmillenniumUbaid 4). Burialsof childrenwere nevertheless resent n the Samarra culturevillage at Tell es-Sawwan,whileacemeteryn theSamarra site has provided vidence, lso forthisearlyculture, f thecustom of extramuralburials. By combiningthe informationwe have, albeit notchronologicallyontemporary,cant ndgeographicallycattered, e can make a numberof interestingbservations.On the one hand, the burialsof infants t Sawwan wereconcentratedn large quantitiesunder one (Build. 2) of the level I tripartite ouses(Fig. 5c), and contained s funeraryfferingsbjectsofideological ignificance,uchasturquoise eads,alabasteror marblefemale igurinesnd vases Forest1996:49). On theotherhand,even the mostrecent emeteriesn the fullUbaid 4 periodat Ur and Eriduonceagainreveal radicalequalitynthewaythedead were reated,nd in thefunerarypractices Lloydand Safar 1948:117-19;Woolley1955;Forest 1983:111-16;WrightndPollock 1984:324-8; Pollock1999:199-204). Furnishingsonsisted lmost xclusivelyfpottery essels,whichvariedonly in number nd were perhaps containers or foodofferings.lmostno luxury r specificallyitualisticbjectswere found n theseburials(occasionallybeads in children's nd women'sgraves, lay figurinesr otherclay andstoneobjects).


20/27

Differentypes f egalitarianocieties 169The apparentmismatchbetweenthis funerarydeologyand the clear evidence ofthe emergence f pre-eminentoles in the fifthmillenniumn Lower Mesopotamia

led Stein 1994) to suggest hattherewas an intentional r ideological limination f thedifferenceshatwere emerging, ivingrise to contradictionsnside the society.Steinlinks thistrait o a hypothesizedelianceof Ubaid societyon staplefinance:Chieflyaccess to rural urpluseswouldhavedependedon their bility o maintainocal kinties'and thiswould have entailed the need for downplaying ntra-group ifferentiation'(Stein 1994: 43). This hypothesis s plausible and very interesting Earle 1989)(I especially greewith hesuggestion f a staple-based conomy n the Ubaid society),but nevertheless,n my opinion, t may reveal a basic and real equalitywithin hepopulation,whichevenin the advanced Ubaid perioddid not yetappear to be reallystratified.At thesametime,from he earliest hases a kind of aristocratic' onceptof societyseemsto have emerged, iving pre-eminentocial and symbolic ole to one particularhouseholdrepresentinghe whole community, erhapsby virtue of its genealogicalpositionnthekinshipnddescentystems.he concentrationf burials f children oundunder dwellingt Tell es-Sawwan, orexample, howsthat,from he nitialformationof thesecentral-southernesopotamiancommunities,ne householdunitstood as asymbolicbenchmark or the whole community,nd must have been the ideologicaldepositoryf thecontinuityf thegroup births nd deaths), venthough t did notyetdisplay ny politicalor functional re-eminencethe dwellingwas notarchitecturallyrfunctionallyistinct).t is interestingonote that his ustomwas subsequentlyvidencedin thevillage fTell Abada in theHamrin Jasim 989)and later till, owards heendoftheUbaid period, n thenorth fMesopotamiaat Tepe Gawra levelXII (Tobler 1950;Forest1983: 19-110),whenthe social and politicalpre-eminencef the chiefhouseholdgrouphadbythenbecomequiteclear.For, n bothcases,thenumerous urials f nfantswereconcentratednder one specialhouse,whichwas differentrom ll the others nterms f size, architecturaleatures nd theparticular bjectsfound nside Rothman2002:75-83) Fig. 6). Thepre-eminentositionwithin hekinshipystemndthe deologyof the grouphad perhapsby thenalso been associated with some sort of economicprivilegesnd a political oleofcommunityovernance.It seemsto me thatnumerous lements f continuityetween he sixthmillenniumEarlyUbaid-Samarra nd fifthmillennium baid 3-4 societies an be identified, ithwidening gap betweenthe population and a leadership,which was initiallyonlyideological and kinship-based, nd which subsequently cquired more social andpoliticalroles, eadingto an increased apacityto centralizewealth. t was during hisprocess,nmy opinion, hatgraduated ankingwas established,onnectedwith risingproduction urplus, ncreasing ompetitionnd differentiationsn resource ccess,andthe emergenceof new needs for managingthese different,nd often conflicting,pressures.New privileged ouseholdsprobablyemerged hrough elegations f powerand theattributionftasksto familieswith closerkinship o thechief.n otherwords,thepotential fsocial stratificationnherentn a conicalkinship ystemwas able to takeon the ncreasingnternal conomiccompetitionn fully griculture-basedommunitieslivingn a highly roductive ut unstable nvironment. nd I would stress hat tmaynot have been by chance that these kinship relationships rose in that particular


21/27

170 MarcellaFrangipane

Figure Settlementsf he ateUbaidphases fifth illenniumC): - TellAbada Ubaid3) fromJasim989: ig. );b- TepeGawraevelXII (Terminal baid) re-elaboratedrom obler 950: l.VIII). Thehighlightedreas videncehe re-eminentripartiteouses.

ecologicaland economicenvironment.baid society,which believe n itsearly tagesto have been basically an egalitariansocietywith a symbolicand representativeleadership,volved into a new truerank society,readyto develop later into a fullystratifiedystem.


22/27

Differentypes f egalitarianocieties 171The differencesnthepotential or hange ntwotypes fegalitarianocietiesThe combination f a systemhinginground household nitswith the productionofsurpluses romhighly roductive griculturend differencesn thequalityof the ands,whichcertainlyreatedeconomicdiscrepanciesnd competition,nd with the need tocoordinate arious pecialized nits ndwatermanagementrobably reated hepotentialfor he stablishmentfa central rganizationnd central owersnLowerMesopotamia.The temples',nwhich heoligarchic ouseholds robably xercised hefunction fsocialmediationand 'mediation with the divinities',ncreasingly ecame places in whichauthority as exercised nd economicfunctions ereperformedhroughhe centraliza-tionofgoods offerings?)nd their eremonial edistribution.his s well evidenced romthe emplest EriduVII-VI and theTepeGawraXIII northernemples. venthough hisredistribution ay still have been restricted o particularoccasions (ceremonies), tneverthelessppearsto be verydifferentrom heegalitarian edistributionractised ythe Jezira Neolithic societies (Frangipane 2000). In the case of the 'centralizedredistribution',nlikewhathappened n the collective tores t Sabi Abyad, onlysomeof themobilizedgoods weresubsequently edistributed,ayingthe foundations or aprocessofwealth ccumulation.The establishmentfcomplex rganizationalystemsnd the concentrationfsurplusmade tpossiblefor he settlementso expand nresponse o demographic rowth,o thepointoftriggeringn all-outprocess f urbanisationnthefourthmillenniumC.Despitethe development f numerousnew activities nd specializationsn thesenew urbanenvironments,hecentralizationndredistributionractices ontinued or longtime oinvolvestaple commodities bove all, and one of the most important esources tillremainedhe abourthat ections f thepopulation fferedhepublic nstitutions,hichmeant ssentiallyhedominant ouseholds. he redistributionf food totheworkerswastherefore form f investmentather hana real redistributionf resourcesn the truesenseof theterm.Land, livestock nd labour formed he basis of the wealth' and theinequalities n proto-urbanMesopotamiansociety, s shownfromthe hundreds ndthousands fmass-produced owls forredistributingood,concentratedn the seats ofpower, nd the omplex dministrativectivity erformedytheLate Uruk centresn thefourthmillennium o manageand control he redistributionf goods to thepersonnelwho workedforthe central nstitutionsFrangipane t al. in press).7The sophisticatedadministrativeechnologysed nthe galitarianommunitiesnthenorthwas adoptedbythenewhierarchicalocieties nd appliedto the ontrol f accumulated oods,both nthepublic ndin theprivatepheres. he linkage etweenhe eremonial-religiousunctionfthepublic nstitutionsnd the elitesembodyinghemwas stillverypronouncedn thefourthmillennium,howinghegenetichreadinkinghesenewhierarchicalndstratifiedsystemso their vertical galitarian' ntecedentsn the Ubaid period.Unlikewhatoccurredn the horizontal galitarian ocieties',which need to remainunchangedo beefficient,n verticalgalitarianocieties', ased ona systemfpotentiallycompetitiveconomic elationsmonghouseholds ndkinshipystems hich ontain heseedsof differencesn their ulesofdescent, he mechanisms orreproducinghesystemcan themselvesdrive the gradual wideningof these differences,o the point oftransforminghe whole society nto something adicallynew. The dominantrelations


23/27

172 MarcellaFrangipanechangefrombeing equal' to become unequal'. And the seed of inequalitys terriblydestabilizingnd victorious, ecause itproducesmoredynamic ocieties, ble to absorbcontradictionsnd readyfor hange.As a result f the mpactof the northwardxpansionofUbaid groupson theHalafcommunities,he atter ommunitiesuccumbed,while heformermposed heir nequalsystem, ntroducing adical changes in the local conservative ocieties of UpperMesopotamia and preparing he development f the Late Chalcolithichierarchicalsocieties.

Dipartimentoi ScienzeStoriche,Archeologiche AnthropologicheelVAntichitd,UniversitdiRoma 'La Sapienza',Via Palestro63, 00185Roma

Notes1 CalibratedC14 dates BC are used.2 The excavation f theHalaf settlementt Kazane is still imited o an extremelymallarea and ismostly npublished.3 Only an extensive xcavation,stratigraphicaliyonnectingn detail the individualbuildingphasesrecognizedn differentrenches,ould actuallyprovetheabsence ofshiftingn the settled reasduring he course ofthesamearchaeological hase.4 A certain uantity f charred rainshas beenfound t Sabi Abyad nthearea aroundthese tructuresAkkermans 993:52-66).5 We havesuggestedheuse of the Latin term retula o designate lay sealings nd anykind ofsealedadministrativeools Frangipane t al. inpress).6 This,rather hanexchangeor transhumantastoralismWengrow1998),was in myopinion the main explanationfor the Halaf 'expansion',also accordingwiththeextensive, radualand capillary ccupationby this culture f the EasternAnatolianregions.7 The exchange f valuables over ongdistanceswas certainlylso intensifieduring heurbanization rocess nMesopotamiaand theexploitationfmetalshad undergone

clear ntensification,tartingrom he nd oftheUbaid period see Degirmentepe Esin1989)and more videntlyntheUrukperiod.The economic ectors hatwere ubjectedto an increasingly omplexand sophisticateddministrativepparatus- and werethereforender real centralized ontrol were till, owever,n theLate Urukperiod,thoserelated o theproduction fstaples nd themanagementf the abourforce, sdocumented ythearchaeological vidence,where texists,nmorethanone sitebothin the northJebelAruda,Arslantepe) nd inthe south Uruk-Warka). am thereforeconvinced that the basic sources of wealth forthe emerging liteswere primaryproducts,whereastrade and production f valuables (the so-called wealthfinance')accompaniedthisprocessas a consequenceof the ncreasedpowerof thehigh-rankunits and theirnewrequestsforprestige nd craft rticlesAlgaze 2001; Frangipane2001; Frangipane nd Algaze 2001).


24/27

Differentypes fegalitarianocieties 173ReferencesAdams,R. M. 1981. The Heartland fCities.Chicago, L: UniversityfChicagoPress.Adams, R. M. and Wright,H. T. 1989. Concludingremarks n Upon thisFoundation:UbaidReconsiderededs E. F. Henrickson nd I. Thuesen).CarstenNiebuhr nstitute fAncientNearEastern Studies. Universityof Copenhagen Museum. Copenhagen: Tusculanum Press,pp. 441-56.Akkermans, . M. M. G. 1993. Villages n theSteppe.AnnArbor,MI: Universityf MichiganPress.Akkermans, . M. M. G. (ed.) 1996. Tell Sabi Abyad:The Late Neolithic ettlement.stanbul:NederlandsHistorisch-Archaeologischnstituut.Akkermans,. M. M. G. andDuistermaat, . 1996.Ofstorage nd nomads: he ealings rom ateNeolithic abi Abyad,Syria.Paleorient,2(2): 17-32.Akkermans,. M. M. G. and Schwartz,G. M. 2003. TheArchaeology f Syria. CambridgeWorldArchaeology. ambridge: ambridgeUniversityress.Algaze, G. 2001. The prehistory f imperialism.n Vruk Mesopotamiaand its Neighbors:Cross-culturalnteractionsn the Era of State Formation ed. M. S. Rothman). School ofAmericanResearchAdvancedSeminar eries.SantaFe, NM: Schoolof AmericanResearchPress,pp. 27-83.Bernbeck, ., Pollock,S. andCoursey, . 1999.The Halaf settlementt Kazane Hoyuk.Anatolica,25: 109-47.Breniquet, . 1991.Tell es-Sawwan: ealites tproblemes. raq, 53: 75-90.Breniquet,C. 1996. La disparition e la culturede Halaf Paris: Editions Recherche sur lesCivilisations.Campbell, ., Carter, ., Healey,E., Anderson, ., Kennedy,A. and Whitcher,. 1999.Emergingcomplexityn the Kahramanmarasplain, Turkey:the Domuztepe project,1995-97. AmericanJournalfArchaeology,03: 395-418.Carter,E., Campbell,S. and Gauld, S. 2003. Elusive complexity: ew data fromLate HalafDomuztepe n SouthCentralTurkey. aleorient, 9(2): 117-33.Duistermaat, . 1996.The seals and sealings. n Tell Sabi Abyad:The Late Neolithic ettlement,Vol. 2 (ed. P. M. M. G. Akkermans).stanbul: NederlandsHistorisch-Archaeologischnstituut,pp. 339-401.Earle, T. 1987. Chiefdomsn archaeological nd ethnohistoricalerspective.Annual ReviewofAnthropology,6: 279-308.Earle,T. 1989.The evolution f chiefdoms. urrent nthropology,0(1): 84-8.Earle, T. 1991. The evolutionof chiefdoms. n Chiefdoms: ower, Economy, nd Ideology(ed. T. Earle). Cambridge: ambridgeUniversityress,pp. 1-15.Esin, U. 1989. An earlytrading enter n EasternAnatolia. In Anatolia and theAncientNearEast (eds K. Emre, B. Hrouda, M. Mellink and N. Ozgiic). Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu,pp. 135-8.Feinman,G. 1991. Demography, urplus, nd inequality: arly politicalformationsn highlandMesoamerica. n Chiefdoms:ower,Economy,ndIdeologyed. T. Earle). Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityress,pp. 229-62.Feinman,G. andNeitzel,J. 1984.Too many ypes: n overview fsedentary restateocietiesn theAmericas.AdvancesnArchaeological ethod ndTheory (ed. M. Schiffer).ew York:AcademicPress,pp. 39-102.


25/27

174 MarcellaFrangipaneFerioli, P. and Fiandra, E. 1983. Clay-sealingsfromArslantepeVI A: administrationndbureaucracy. rigini, 2(2): 455-509.Flannery, . V. 1993.Will thereal modelpleasestandup: commentsn Saidel's Round houseorsquare?'.Journal fMediterraneanrchaeology,(1): 109-17.Flannery,K. V. 1994. Childe the evolutionist: perspective romnuclearAmerica.In TheArchaeologyfV. GordonChilde ed. D. R. Harris).London:UCL Press.Flannery, . V. 1999. ChiefdomsntheearlyNear East: why t's so hard to identifyhem. n TheIranian World: ssayson IranianArt ndArchaeologyedsA. Alizadeh,Y. Majidzadehand S. M.Shahmirzadi). ehran: ranUniversityress.Flannery,K. V. 2002. The origins f thevillagerevisited: romnuclearto extendedhouseholds.American ntiquity,7(3): 417-33.Forest,J. D. 1983. Les pratiques unerairesn Mesopotamiedu Ve millenaireu debutdu Illemillenaire. emoiren. 19. Paris: EditionsRecherche ur es Civilisations.Forest,J. D. 1996.Mesopotamie: apparitione Vetat. aris:EditionsParis-Mediterranee.Frangipane,M. 1996. La nascitadello Stato nel VicinoOriente.Roma-Bari:Laterza.Frangipane, M. 2000. The developmentof administration rom collective to centralizedeconomies in the Mesopotamianworld: the transformationf an institution rom system-serving' o 'self-serving'.n Cultural volution: ontemporary iewpointseds G. Feinman nd L.Manzanilla). Fundamental Issues in Archaeology.New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum,pp. 215-32.Frangipane,M. 2001. Centralization rocesses n GreaterMesopotamia: Uruk 'expansion' asthe climax of systemicnteractionsmongareas of the GreaterMesopotamianregion. n UrukMesopotamia and its Neighbors:Cross-culturalnteractionsn the Era of State Formation(ed. M. S. Rothman).School of AmericanResearchAdvanced SeminarSeries. Santa Fe, NM:School ofAmericanResearchPress,pp. 307-47.Frangipane,M. andAlgaze,G. 2001. On models nd data inMesopotamia.Current nthropology,42(3): 415-17.Frangipane,M., Fiandra, E., Laurito,R. and Pittman, . in press.Arslantepe retulae:AnEarlyCentralised dministrativeystem eforeWriting. rslantepe,ol. 5 (ed. M. Frangipane).Roma:Universita i Roma La Sapienza.Heinrich, . 1982. Die Tempel ndHeiligtumern AlienMesopotamien. erlin:de Gruyter.Hijara, I. 1978.Three newgraves t Arpachiyah.WorldArchaeology,0: 125-8.Huot,J.-L.1989. Ubaidianvillages f LowerMesopotamia:permanencendevolution romUbaid0 to Ubaid 4 as seen fromTell el Oueili. In Upon this Foundation:The Ubaid Reconsidered(eds. E. F. Henrickson nd I. Thuesen).CarstenNiebuhrPublications 0. Copenhagen:MuseumTusculanum ress,pp. 19^42.Huot,J.-L. ed.) 1991.Oueili,travaux e 1985. Memoiren. 89. Paris: Editions Recherche ur esCivilisations.Huot,J.-L. 1994.Les premiers illageois eMesopotamie, uvillage la ville. aris:ArmandColin.Jasim, . 1989. Structure nd functionn an Ubaid village. n UponthisFoundation:The UbaidReconsiderededsE. F. Henrickson nd I. Thuesen).CarstenNiebuhr ublications 0.Copenhagen:MuseumTusculanum ress,pp. 79-90.Kirchhoff,. 1959. The principles f clanship n humansociety. n Readings nAnthropologyI(ed. M. H. Fried).New York: Crowell, p. 260-70.Kirkbride, . 1974.UmmDabaghiyah:a trading utpost? raq, 36: 85-92.


26/27

Differentypes fegalitarianocieties 175Kirkbride, . 1975. UmmDabaghiyah1974:a fourth reliminaryeport. raq, 37(1): 3-10.Lloyd,S. and Safar,F. 1947. Eridu.Sumer, : 84-111.Mair, L. 1962.Primitive overnment: Studyof Traditional oliticalSystemsnEasternAfrica.London:The ScolarPress.Mallowan,M. E. L. and Rose,J. C. 1935. Excavations t TellArpachiyah.raq, 2: 1-178.Merpert,N. Y. and Munchaev,R. M. 1993a. Yarimtepe . In Early Stages in theEvolution fMesopotamian ivilizationedsN. Yoffee nd J. J.Clark).Tucson,AZ, and London:UniversityfArizonaPress,pp. 73-114.Merpert, . Y. and Munchaev,R. M. 1993b.Yarimtepe I: the Halaf levels. n Early Stages ntheEvolutionfMesopotamian ivilizationeds N. Yoffee nd J. J.Clark).Tucson, AZ, and London:Universityf ArizonaPress,pp. 129-62.Merpert, . Y. andMunchaev,R. M. 1993c.Burialpractices f theHalafculture.n EarlyStages nthe volutionfMesopotamian ivilizationedsN. Yoffee nd J.J.Clark).Tucson,AZ, and London:UniversityfArizonaPress,pp. 207-23.Oates, J. 1978. Religionand ritual n sixth-millennium.C. Mesopotamia. WorldArchaeology,10(2): 117-24.Polanyi, K. 1957. The economyas instituted rocess. In Trade and Market in the EarlyEmpires ed. K. Polanyi, C. Arensberg nd H. W. Pearson). Chicago, IL: Henry Regnery,pp. 243-69.Pollock,S. 1999. AncientMesopotamia.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityress.Roaf,M. 1989.Social organizationnd social activityt TellMaddhur. n UponthisFoundation:The UbaidReconsiderededs. E. F. Henricksonnd I. Thuesen).CarstenNiebuhrPublications 0.Copenhagen:MuseumTusculanum ress,pp. 91-146.Rothman,M. 2002. Tepe Gawra: The Evolution f a Small Prehistoric enter nNorthernraq.Monograph112.Philadelphia, A: UniversityfPennsylvaniaMuseum.Safar, ., Mustafa,M. A. andLloyd,S. 1981.Eridu.Baghdad:StateOrganizationfAntiquitiesndHeritage.Stein,G. 1994.Economy, itual, ndpower nUbaid Mesopotamia. n Chiefoms ndEarlyStatesin theNearEast: TheOrganizational ynamics f Complexityeds G. Stein nd M.S. Rothman).Monographsn WorldPrehistory8.Madison,WI: Prehistoryress,pp. 35^6.Tobler,A. J. 1950.Excavations t TepeGawra.Philadelphia, A: UniversityfPennsylvaniaress.Verhoeven,M. 2002.The transformationfsociety:he hanging ole ofritual ndsymbolismnthePPNB and thePN in theLevant,Syria nd south-east natolia.Paleorient, 8(1): 5-13.vonWickede,A. 1990.Prdhistorischetempelglyptikn Vorderasien. iinchen: rofilVerlag.Wengrow, . 1998.The changing ace ofclay': continuityndchange n thetransition rom illageto urban ife n theNear East. Antiquity,2: 783-95.Woolley,C. L. 1955. UrExcavations,Vol. 4, The EarlyPeriods.London: The BritishMuseum;Philadelphia, A: The University useum.Wright, . T. 1981.The southernmargins f Sumer:archaeological urvey f the area of Eriduand Ur. In Heartlandof Cities ed. R. M. Adams). Chicago, IL: Universityf Chicago Press,pp. 295-345.Wright,H. T. and Pollock, S. 1987. Regional socio-economicorganization n SouthernMesopotamia: the middle and later fifthmillennium. n Prehistoirede la Mesopotamie(ed. J.-L.Huot). Paris: Editionsdu CNRS, pp. 316-29.


27/27

176 Marcella FrangipaneYoffee,N. and Clark,J.J. eds) 1993.Early Stages in theEvolutionf Mesopotamian ivilization:SovietExcavations nNorthernraq. Tucson, AZ, and London:UniversityfArizona Press.

MarcellaFrangipanes Professor fPrehistoryndProto-historyftheNear andMiddleEast at theUniversityf Rome La Sapienza.Shehas beenengaged n excavationsn taly,Mexico,Egypt ndTurkey,nd leadstheexcavations tArslantepe-MalatyandZeytinliBahge Hoyiik,Urfa (Turkey).Her major research nterests re the developmentndcharacterization f complexsocieties nd earlystatesystems. he is the editor of twomonographiceries,Arslantepe,hepublication f thefinal esults f the xcavations,ndStudidi PreistoriaOrientaleSPO).

different types of egalitarian societies

Documents