Nomadism and transhumance culture of the Eastern Anatolian archeology: New ideas in light of data

Anadolu ve dünya Arkeolojisinde Doğu Anadolu’nun arkeolojik ve kültürel açıdan yeri ve önemi kuşkusuz tartışılamaz ayrıcalık taşımaktadır. Özellikle bölgedeki 19. yy sonlarından günümüze dek yürütülen arkeolojik araştırmalar bu noktayı destekler durumdadır. 1950’lerden sonra Türk arkeologların yoğun olarak çalışmaya başladığı bölgede yapılan araştırmalar neredeyse Urartu kültürü üzerine odaklanmış durumdadır. Bu odaklanmadan dolayı da bölgenin prehistoryası, prehistorik sanatı, etnografyası, jeoarkeolojisi, etno-arkeolojisi, sosyo-arkeolojisine hemen hiç değinilmemiştir. Bölgede, aralıklarla yürütülen ve Kaya Sanatı üzerine odaklanan tek prehistorik çalışma hala sürekliliğini korumaktadır. Son yıllarda bölge üzerine yapılan yayınlar arasında gördüğümüz ‘Transhümanizm’, ‘Nomadizm’, ‘Göçebelik’ ‘Yayla Kültürleri’, ‘Yaylacılık’ ‘Pastoralism’ ve ‘Yarı Pastoralism’ benzeri terimler yoğun olarak göze çarpmaktadır. Bu kavramların yerli yerine oturması için bölgedeki arkeolojik kazı sonuçlarına ait verilerin kapsamlı olarak yeniden değerlendirilmesinin ne denli önemli olduğu açıkça ortadır. Bu çalışma, kapsamlı değerlendirmeyi hedeflemek yerine, söz konusu kavramların tanım örtüşmesi, bu örtüşmeye hangi arkeolojik materyal kültürün etki ettiği ve materyal kültürün bu kavramların kullanımını nasıl desteklediği üzerinde duracaktır.The importance of Eastern Anatolian Archaeology has been firmly established over the years with the conducted research projects. Especially, those started in 19th century and have continued until today. Since the 1950’s Turkish archaeologists widely embedded their Urartian orientated research programmes within the area. These research programmes, however, excluded prehistory; geoarchaeology, prehistoric art, ethnography and ethno-archaeology of the region. The current works, especially on the second millennium BC, such terminologies “trans humanism”, “pastoralism” and “nomadism” are constantly associated with the eastern Anatolian archaeology. The current examinations of material culture show that the second millennium BC has not been clearly defined. At least there are some problems in understanding and interpretations of the material culture. This may be due to lack of excavations, which are specifically targeting these problems. Therefore, the issue of second millennium phenomena is still not clear to our understanding. The theories on economic operational modes suggestively conclude the appearance of nomadic or pastoralist cultures in the region. However, still no clear evidence has been provided to account for that transitional occurrence from agriculturalist 3rd millennium to pastoralist 2nd millennium or vice versa, towards the first millennium. Because, after the domination of coloured ceramic culture, which is referred to as a symbol of pastoralist or nomadic economy in the second millennium, a domination that lasts roughly five hundred years, then ceramic culture suddenly changes again in the region. In the light of these changes can we assume that the established economic standards changed again to agricultural economy? The main issue in this paper is can it possible to trace the economical changes from the types or decoration of the ceramics? Are the contexts of these ceramics a trustable guide to interpret the economy on which the society was based? The depiction of economic explanations is based on the ceramic culture and changes in it. Özfırat (2001) argues and defines economic transition on the basis of absence of painted ceramic discoveries from the “Höyük” type-sites in the region while Çilingiroğlu (1990) points out the presence of these ceramics in Iranian settlements. The other argument of Özfırat is also based on the contexts of these painted ceramics, which are mainly found in burials, which are located in the high plateaus of Eastern Anatolia. In this view, it is possible to infer that Iranian second millennium settlers have used Eastern Anatolian high plateaus within the frame of their pastoralist economy. If not, then a specific trade market developed to provide painted ceramics for burial rituals in the second millennium. This paper intends to overview the importance of these jargons for the region as well as the meaning of these terms within the archaeology of Eastern Anatolia. Are these terms really qualified to address the economic and archaeological situation for the Bronze Age of eastern Anatolian archaeology? Do we have enough evidence to use these terms for the current situation of the second millennium archaeology in Eastern Anatolia? How much material culture do we have to suggest the economic divisions of Eastern Anatolian Bronze age archaeology? Do we know the material culture that can also indicate that other economic forms applied in the region other than ceramics? Or can also demographical archaeology support this evidence? Since archaeology is firmly concerned with material culture, how do we conclude that these economic terms were applied in the Bronze Age period solely on the basis of ceramics? Therefore, this short paper will briefly explore the strength of this evidence that has been presented by researchers