The Amuq Valley: Ethnic Identity during the Early Iron Age

The collapse of Bronze Age civilization in the late second millennium and the emergence of territorial states in the ensuing Iron Age have been the focus of intense archaeological scrutiny in recent years. hile it has

become increasingly evident that cultural groups cannot be vie!ed as monolithic" homogenous entities" and that tracing the origins of distinct populations is an impossible avenue to pursue" it is also clear that ethnicity" and more specifically ethnic identity" played a profound role in shaping the fragmented cultural and political landscape that emerged across much of the #ear East at the end of the $ate Bronze Age and during the Early Iron Age.

This paper !ill focus on the historical and archaeological record for this period on the Amuq %lain. I !ill argue that the material culture and the literary evidence of the &' th(&&th century B) Amuq reflect a mi*ture of $u!ian" #ear Eastern and Aegean trends" and I !ill investigate !hether this evidence can be interpreted as representative of a sub(elite identity that emerged in the Amuq during this period.

+ohannes Verstraete ,epartement of )lassics -niversity of )incinnati %lease do not cite !ithout permission of the author.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Boston, MS, November 19 !!, !""#$

In the .th century A, the Byzantine historian /alalas recorded this local legend of the Antioch plain in his %hronographia.

0)asus enim re* u*orem habuit Amycen" que et )ittia vocata est" 1aialamini" )ypriorum regis" filiam: cum hac )yprii venientes" urbis summitates incoluerunt. Amyce deinde mortua" centum ab urbe stadiis sepulta est" a qua regio ea Amyce dicta sit.2

This intriguing story" though far removed in time" reveals the residues of a historical memory of a )ypriot presence.

In this paper I !ill focus on the Aegean component of the historical and archaeological record during the Early Iron Age or the &'th 3 &&th century B) in the Amuq %lain. I !ill argue that the material culture and the literary evidence reflect a mi*ture of #ear Eastern and Aegean trends" and I !ill investigate !hether this evidence can be interpreted as representative of a sub(elite identity that emerged in the Amuq during this period.

The fracturing of the $ate Bronze Age civilizations during the late second millennium and the emergence of the so(called 4nation(states5 in the beginning of the first millennium has been the focus of intense archaeological debate during the last &6 years. At the same time that the e*isting political landscape e*perienced a brea7do!n in the period around" and immediately after" &'66 for a variety of reasons" movements by a number of different peoples !ere ta7ing place. 8uestions of ethnicity have preoccupied much of the research. '

9o!ever" an ethnic group is a social" rather than a biological category" characterized by remar7able fluidity and dynamism. /aterial culture is only one tool people use to construct" represent" maintain and signify ethnicity. As ethnic identity is 0socially constructed and sub:ectively perceived2" the simple presence of similarities of a biological" linguistic" religious and cultural nature is not satisfactory for ethnic status determination. Because the available evidence for archaeological research is 0static2" limited" and fragmentary and 4ethnicity5 is a dynamic" fluid concept" the archaeological study of ethnic groups is difficult" particularly in the prehistoric period" as !e !ill see in the case of the Amuq during transition from the $ate Bronze Age to Early Iron Age.

&; 9istorical evidence Indigenous contemporary documentary sources are scarce. The fe! that do e*ist contain no information about the political history of the Amuq during the Early Iron Age and only very little about the Iron Age. e are forced to rely on abbreviated accounts of a later date"

dra!n primarily from the military annals of #eo(Assyrian 7ings. These records outline the political geography of the region during the ninth and eighth centuries" and confirm the e*istence of a small independent #eo(9ittite 7ingdom confined roughly !ithin the geographical borders of the Amuq %lain. In addition to the annals" references to the <ingdom of %atina appear in a number of inscriptions that date to the reign of 1halmaneser. =n the fifth register of the engraved bronze bands of the Bala!at >ates" dated appro*imately to ?@6" 0the people of -nqi2" not %atina" are depicted bearing tribute to 1halmaneser. The change of name from %atina A$u!ian; to -nqi AAramaic; can be

interpreted as a sign of po!er struggle !ithin %atinaC-nqi !ith ethnic overtones. Although limited" !hen ta7en as a !hole" the e*isting sources point consistently to a decisive change in the political order of late ninth century north!est 1yria. This change clearly coincided !ith the rise of the Aramaeans.

There are also >ree7 literary sources" but they all are of a much later date. /alalas !rote his 0)hronographia2 in the si*th century A," referring to an unspecific time in the past. The /opsos legend" the little Iliad 3 the return of the >ree7 heroes after the Tro:an !ar 3 and foundation stories are all very problematic as sources and can5t help us pinpoint Aegean presence in the Amuq.

In conclusion" historical evidence gives us no information about the Amuq during the Early Iron Age. The scarce documentary sources of the Iron Age suggest a political change !ith ethnic overtone" from $u!ian to Aramaic during the latter part of the ninth century in the Amuq region.

A revie! of the archaeological record reveals a corresponding shift.

'; The archaeological evidence 1urvey data from the Amuq %lain indicate a decline in settlement during the $ate Bronze Age that mirrors a general decline throughout the #ear East during this period. A sharp increase reversed this trend during the Early Iron Age and especially the Iron Age" !hen the settlement number !as almost doubling. The original Braid!ood survey" conducted as part

of the 1yrian E*pedition of the =riental Institute in the &EB6s" recorded .& /iddle Bronze Age A%hase VII" or $;" B& $ate Bronze Age A%hase VI" or /;" D. Early Iron Age Aca. &'66( &666 B.).E.F %hase V" or #;" and @G Iron Age Aca. &666(@66 B.).E.F %hase IV" or =; sites. 9o!ever" data of the more recent survey indicate a more gradual decline in settlement during the $ate Bronze Age continuing during the Early Iron Age. A sharp increase during the Iron Age reversed this trend !ith the number of sites almost doubling.

hen e*amined more closely" the survey data reveal a number of interesting patterns. =nly &D of the .D 7no!n /BA sites" or '&.?G percent" also preserved evidence of $ate Bronze Age AAmuq /; occupation" suggesting a significant brea7 bet!een the t!o periods. Te*tual data from Alala7h VII A/BA; and IV A$BA; confirm this impression of discontinuous occupation. Eighteen of the @? to!ns" mentioned in the level VII tablets" still e*isted during Alala7h IV and !ere mentioned among the ''' place names in the te*ts from this level. 9o!ever" the &D sites account for one halve of the total number of recorded Amuq / sites. /oreover" &6 of these &D sites !ere occupied during /BA" $BA" and Iron Age" and represented multiple(period mounds !ith long occupational sequences. Another D of the '? 7no!n Amuq / sites" or &D.'?H" !ere ne! settlements. In the ne*t phase" '..B'H" or @ of the &E 7no!n Amuq # sites !ere ne! settlements. In contrast" the evidence for continuity bet!een the Early Iron AgeCphase # and the Iron AgeCphase = is clear. &' of the &E 7no!n Amuq # sites" or a remar7able .B.&. percent" !ere also occupied in %hase =.

1ite(size data confirm the apparent shift to!ard settlement intensification. The average site size almost doubled from the /BA to Early Iron Age" but decreased from the Early

Iron Age to the Iron Age AIig. &;. The median sho!s a similar development: an initial increase follo!ed by a decrease. ,uring %hase = more than .? percent of the sites !ere small" !hile only '@ percent !ere medium" !ith Tell Ta4yinat" at B@ ha" more than three times larger than the ne*t settlement A)atal 9oyu7" A1 &.G; in the site(size hierarchy.

hen !e turn to the sites !ith Aegean and Aegean(li7e ceramics" !e notice something quite interesting. Aegean imports !ere found on B phase / sites. )ypriot hite 1lip II

!as found on Jassiyurt AA1 .; and Topra7li" Baytarli AA1 D6; and a possible plain /ycenaean deep bo!l at Atchana AA1 &B.;. Additionally" Aegean pottery !as e*cavated at Atchana" Katal 9LyM7" and +udaidah AA1 &G.;. 1ite(size data indicate clearly the dichotomy bet!een large sites !ith Aegean pottery" i.e. /ycenaean and )ypriot" and the small to medium ones !here only )ypriot pottery !as found. ith the e*ception of

Topra7li" all sites !ith Aegean finds are located along trade routes. Atchana" Katal 9LyM7 and +udaidah are situated along the East( est route and Jassiyurt !as on a probable route from the north.

Aegean(li7e pottery characteristic of phase # !as collected on &? sites. The find spots are distributed all over the plain !ith concentrations in the south and central part. The Aegean(li7e ceramics are more evenly distributed than !ere the Aegean imports during the previous phase. The average size of the sites on !hich Aegean(li7e pottery !as found is also much larger than the average phase # site size" suggesting that these settlements are more li7ely to have been important sites AB..' ha versus B.BE ha;.

,eep bo!ls" a shape !ith strong Aegean influences" form a large minority of the Aegean( li7e vessels. The . sites AA1 ?D" ?E" EE"&'6" &'E" &.G; on !hich this shape !as found are all located in the south and central part of the plain" and if site(size is an indication of importance" these . sites !ere very important. Their average size" @.DB ha" is significantly larger than the phase # average. Also" if the deep bo!l !as used preferentially during feasts" and if there e*isted a relationship bet!een feasts and status" as is suggested" then it is perhaps reasonable to interpret the presence of deep bo!ls as an indication of the importance of the site and its occupants.

The results of the Amuq 1urvey point to the disappearance of a first(tier site during the $BA Aphase /; in favor of @ or . second(tier sites during the Early Iron Age Aphase #;. These second(tier sites are also the find spot of Aegean(li7e pottery.

E*cavation data complement the information from the surveys. Bet!een &EB' and &EB?" The =riental Institute e*cavated remains belonging to the Iron Age at Katal 9LyM7 and +udaidah. The follo!ing analysis is based on a 0representative selection2 of the e*cavated pottery that the 1yrian(9ittite E*pedition brought to )hicago" ca. &6H of the total e*cavated amount. /ore than @666 sherds from Katal 9LyM7" of !hich &&.@ belong to phase #" !ere e*amined. I identified BBE of these &&.@ sherds as )ypriot or Aegean(li7e.

Apart from some )ypriot pottery" I identified no imports from the

est. Aegean(li7e

pottery" ho!ever" constitutes more than '6H of the total e*amined pottery from phase #.

The number of Aegean(li7e vessels is at least &@6. =pen shapes are more common than closed ones.

A detailed analysis of all pottery of square # &B sho!s that more than G@H of the Aegean(li7e ceramics !as openF by contrast" .'..'H of the local pottery !as closed AIig. ';. )ontainer vessels" such as :ars and :ugs" are especially numerous among the local shapes. They form appro*imately B6H of the local pottery" !hile the bo!l" the most frequent open shape" represents only &'.G'H of the local pottery.

The deep bo!l is the most common open shape among the Aegean(li7e ceramic assemblage from square # &B. The deep bo!l represents almost one third of all Aegean( li7e pottery. T!o more common open shapes are the shallo! angular bo!ls and 7raters. The popularity of feasts and drin7ing rituals in the #ear East e*plains perhaps the preeminence of these three types of vessels.

A comparison bet!een the number of open Aegean(li7e vessels at Katal 9LyM7 Aphase # 3 Iron Age I; and the number of closed Aegean ones at Atchana Aphase / 3 $ate Bronze Age; sho!s a shift from the dominance of closed shapes A??.&GH; at Atchana to open shapes AG@H; at Katal 9LyM7 AIig. B;. This shift" and the prevalence of closed shapes among the local pottery during Iron Age I" might suggest that the local population preferred the Aegean(li7e ceramics for serving and consumption purposes rather than as containers. It is reasonable then to suggest that the Aegean(type vessels !ere indicators of status during this period. This observation" coupled !ith the distribution of Aegean(

li7e ceramics in Iron Age I N!ider than that of Aegean imports during the $BAN could be interpreted as evidence of political rivalry during the Early Iron Age.

e no! reach the question of !hy should consider material Aegean(li7e rather than Aegean. 1tylistically" these ceramics sho! close affinities !ith the pottery from the islands of )yprus" )hios" <os"the ,odecanese and the southern part of the est coast of

Asia /inor. >enerally" linear patterns are the most frequent type of decoration of Aegean(li7e pottery during Iron Age I. This type of decoration is dominant on deep bo!ls and shallo! angular bo!ls. The pattern most commonly consists of a horizontal band above and belo! the handles" leaving a reserved zone at the height of the handle. In more than @6H of the e*amples this zone remains undecorated" and in another '6H the zone is filled !ith one or multiple !avy lines.

The second most frequent type of decoration" single or multiple !avy lines" occurs often on deep bo!ls. This pattern is also found on Aegean or Aegean(li7e ceramics from Ain ,ara" En7omi" )hios" and Tell Afis. The monochrome painted decoration is the third most frequent type. The use of tails belo! the handle and the framing of the decorative zone are features that occur in the East Aegean during $9 III). 1pirals are not a common motif" in contrast !ith )hios and on )yprus !here it is a popular pattern. There are fe! e*amples of the pictorial style at Katal 9LyM7" among others a 7rater decorated !ith a bird and one !ith a fish.

The fabrics" ho!ever" suggest hybridity in the Aegean(li7e ceramics. Technically" there are t!o main fabrics" A and B. Although both are quite different from the local fabrics" t!o intriguing aspects of these fabrics suggest a local origin. The clay in both cases is rather fine. Iabric A" ca. B6H of the total number of e*amined sherds from phase #" has a gray to greenish clay" !hich is hard fired and painted !ith matt blac7 paint. Iabric B" ca. '?H" has a yello!ish to buff clay and is also hard fired and decorated !ith a matt red through reddish bro!n to bro!n paint. The fabrics resemble those of the undecorated /ycenaean III):&b pottery at En7omi" level IIIB and III)" and at /aa(%aleo7astro during the $) III period and of the imported pottery from Tell Afis. Both fabrics" ho!ever" appear to have no real slip" unli7e Aegean ceramics. The surface is smoothed and generally of a similar color as the clay. )haff is present in almost @6H of the pottery fragments. This high number could indicate tempering. The use of chaff as temper in fine !are is a #ear Eastern technique" not observed in the AegeanF this suggests that the potters !ere locals. The presence of gold mica in ..&EH of the pottery also suggests a local origin of the clay. Iurther provenance analyses are necessary to confirm these hypotheses.

In sum" the results of the Amuq 1urvey indicate that Aegean(li7e ceramics had a !ider distribution in phase # than did the Aegean imports in phase /. This possibly indicates a circulation among a !ider range of social groups" !ho !ere distributed among a greater number of smaller sites. I suggest that the local elites adopted feasts and other drin7ing rituals as a means of defining their status and of bonding their follo!ers in a conte*t of political rivalry. =pen vessels in the Aegean style seem to have been the pottery of choice

&6

for these occasions. The production and distribution of Aegean(li7e pottery closer to home" rather than the use of imports" simply mirrors and enacts symbolically the local development of po!er. It is not clear" ho!ever" !ho made the pottery" !hether they !ere local potters !or7ing in the 0Aegean2 tradition or Aegean immigrants adapting themselves to local technology and circumstances.

Than7 you.

&&

Iigures. /BA
Average /edian '.@?.&&G

$BA
B.&'@.

Early Iron Age

D.@E?&'@

Iron Age
B.B6'G6?

&.G@

'.@D

B.6E@

&.ED@

Iig. &. Amuq 1urvey. 1ite(size data AAverage and /edian;. =pen Vessel &?? ABG.6'H; &B' AG@H; B'6 ADG.&BH; )losed Vessel B&@ A.'..'H; DD A'@H; B@E A@'.?GH; Total @6B A&66H; &G. A&66H; .GE A&66H;

$ocal Aegean(li7e Total

Iig. ' Katal 9LyM7" square # &B: $ocal and Aegean(li7e pottery during phase #. Alala7h A%hase /; @? AE.GEH; @'' A??.&GH; @E' A&66H; Katal 9LyM7 A%hase #; &B' AG@H; DD A'@H; &G. A&66H;

=pen shapes )losed shapes Total

Iig. B. Alala7h Aphase /; and Katal 9LyM7 A%hase #;: A comparison of the number of open and closed shapes.

&'