This is an old post and is probably extremely cringe. Please understand that I have moved on from these ideas. Still, it may contain some nuggets that point to some continuity in my thinking over the years, which is why I decided to post it here.
Notes on paper for Space, Place and Landscape — on the role of Arpachiyah and the socio-economic landscape of the Halaf
Halaf suddenly arose and spread across a large area — between 5200 and 4500 BCE (7200 - 6500 BP) Simple band around the rim is standard ceramic ware, but more complex designs as well, up to 3 colour Architecture differed as well — round houses with domed our flat roofs, as opposed to rectangular houses earlier and later. Rectangular architecture used in “secondary buildings” according to Campbell (1992). Emerged from the Hassuna, which was distributed across northern Syria and Iraq, more or less at the same time at each locale. This suggests that “the spread of a single cultural tradition over much of the northern portion of the Near East can no longer be dated to a time late in the Halaf, perhaps about 4700 B.C.E.,but must be placed much earlier, at the end of the Hassuna, around 5200 B.C.E.” (Campbell 1992: 183). The Halaf seems to have arose with the aid of already established social “infrastructure” that spanned a wide region, and it’s specific origin point can therefore not be deduced. The Halaf occurs during the mid-point between the beginnings of agriculture and the rise of the first cities, so is a natural place to look for the processes that led from one to the other. Large increase in population from the early Halaf to the late, due to the intensification of agriculture in northern Iraq and Syria. Davidson 1981 and Davidson and McKerrall 1980 have conducted NAA on Halaf pottery and found that it was probably manufactured in only a few locations, and traded elsewhere. Perhaps this ties in with LeBlanc and Watson 1973, who found variations of Halaf motifs correspond with distance. Obsidian is found in large quantities in northern Iraq and Syria despite the long distance to eastern Anatolian sources. Obsidian is found mainly as finished blades, suggesting that it was worked elsewhere and that contacts with these producers was stable and and consistent. No indication from Campbell 1992 regarding the specific sources of these blades. “With a single exception, none of the chipping debris that must have been generated during the manufacture of these blades has been found at a late Halaf site.” (Campbell 1992: 184-185).
Arpachiyah Burnt House - Level TT6 — last Halaf level at Arpachiyah. Extremely rich finds found there. Polychrome pottery perhaps not as common as often believed. Also stone bowls — one of obsidian in the burnt house. Also obsidian links. Also seals and seal impressions. All of this material suggests that Arpachiyah exhibited control over others in the region in a formalized and direct manner. The large amounts of obsidian at Arpachiyah suggest a central role in exchange, and heightened ability to acquire needed resources. Davidson and McKerrall 1980 showed that 30-40% of pottery from Tepe Gawra originated from Arpachiyah using NAA. The Burnt House was probably last of a series of earlier iterations of similar design, suggesting that this control was not short-lived. The eponymous Burnt House is Later Halaf. Despite all this, the small size of Tell Arpachiyah and the variability of Halaf motifs suggest that control was rather limited to a small area. However central position in a trade network, or perhaps a social network, may have bolstered richness despite the small area covered.
Some larger Halaf sites are hinted but not excavated as of 1992 — Nineveh may have a Halaf layer, and Takyan Hoyuk is 12 hectares (Algaze et al 1991). What will this paper be about? I will draw attention to the distinction of north-eastern Mesopotamia during the Halaf period as shown through my network analysis and through other evaluations conducted by Campbell, Healey, etc. How will my paper distinguish itself? How can this be publishable as original research? I think I will have to orient this paper in a more theoretical light. This suits the motivations of this course. What aspects of the course can I touch upon? Building history up, rather than looking back upon it. How places are used as identifiers of power — the Burnt House as a place of social significance rather than Arpachiyah as deriving power from its spatial location. The resistance of and nullification of power — Week 7: Power, Political Landscapes, and Monumental Spaces (Dahomey as an analogy). Draw attention to the lack of truly phenomenological or sensory approaches.
Is the story of the Burnt House an event or reflective of longer term activities and behaviours? It seems that Campbell has trouble deciding, since he discusses the physical acts of individual agents as representative of longer-term norms. If burning down the house was not an act of everyday life (is this an acceptable and reasonable “if” to presume?) then how can it be reflective of typical life? It seems to be treated as a threshold, or a reaction to previous actions; as such, trying to figure out the state of living in pre-burning Arpachiyah is impossible by evaluating this non-typical event. I think if emphasis were placed on household or domestic features, a more purposeful evaluation can be made. In Campbell 1992, he starts off with a rather phenomenological approach but then gets bogged down by the luxury and elite goods and the broad-scale regional comparisons. At this point we know of the significance of Arpachiyah, and that there were regional centres. I generally agree with Kristiansen’s view that there was a shift to less decentralized and more hierarchical modes of regional organization, but can we say anything more than that? How does my network for Period 4 address this? There is clearly a distinction of NE Mesopotamia with an influx of new obsidian raw materials, and these are primarily arriving as worked products. I could analyze a new network consisting of sites within the “zone of Halaf influence” — Zagros Mountains to Euphrates and slightly beyond. I could filter the ties differently, at intervals of 5% similarity and graph density, number of modules, etc for each iteration, as well as mini-max (maximum threshold for minimum connectivity of the entire network). Maybe c-finder would be useful for highlighting overlap of influence that may have prompted conflict. Sites with varied assemblages, which do not fit into a particular GN module or have high betweenness centrality, may be considered to have been less dependent on a particular resource provider (consumer wins with increased competition) and may exhibit more market-oriented economic behaviour. On the other hand, those that are tighter-knit within a cluster are more dependent on a particular supplier and are likely engaged in chief-chief relationships whereby a power struggle is always present and decided upon by a few elite individuals who represent the larger group through their dealings with other leaders.