Jak Yakar: Traits of Nomadic People: Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Research in Turkey. in: Stefan R. Hauser (Hg.): Die Sichtbarkeit von Nomaden und saisonaler Besiedlung in der Archäologie. Multidisziplinäre Annäherungen an ein methodisches Problem. Halle 2006 (Orientwissenschaftliche Hefte 21; Mitteilungen des SFB „Differenz und Integration“ 9) 45–63. © Jak Yakar 2006 Traits of Nomadic People: Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeo- logical Research in Turkey Jak Yakar Nomadic and semi-nomadic communities of Turkmen and Yörük encountered in the countryside of Turkey, especially in the summer pastures of southern Anato- lia and the Lake Districts are the remnants of large Turkic nomadic tribes that invaded Anatolia in the 11th and 13th centuries AD. Additional groups of nomads are the remnants of the Kurdish and Zaza tribes of the Ottoman period that in- habited the remote provinces of eastern and south-eastern Turkey, north Syria, northern Iraq and north-western Iran. Despite their fragmentation from large nomadic tribes numbering in the thousands into much smaller sub-tribal units, and relocation, most of them managed to preserve their ethnic identities, tradi- tional social organization, and an economy mainly based on pastoralism. Fig. 1. A Yörük family in the Lake Districts. 46 | Jak Yakar Since ideal conditions for both sedentary agrarian and nomadic pastoral econo- mies existed in Anatolia since the early Holocene period, I believe that these two rather diverse subsistence strategies could have co-existed ever since the Neolithic period. The fact that villages and campsites of such groups are almost impossible to locate during archaeological surveys, does not exclude their presence in the Anatolian countryside since prehistoric periods. Certain types of mortuary finds can obtain reflections of their presence in archaeological records. Moreover, occa- sional cases of sudden cessation of organized settlement activity in regions previ- ously densely occupied by urban and sedentary rural communities could also be considered as possible indication of their disruptive presence. When dealing with historical periods, such absence of records evaluated in the light of written docu- ments could sometimes support the view that nomadic tribal groups would have been present among the ancient Anatolian populations. Ethnographic models can explain the non-visibility of their archaeological records. For instance, architec- tural characteristics of secondary villages and seasonal camps occupied during periods of transhumance could explain some of the reasons that nomadic sites tend to delude us. This has to do with the location, the construction material and the temporary nature of most site locations. Ethnographic records demonstrate that changing courses of seasonal migrations is one of the reasons that would have caused the occasional shifting of site locations. Along riverbanks, on mountain slopes or hill tops such sites with their meager and unstratified architectural de- posits can be expected to disappear under dense alluvial or vegetation cover or by erosion. In the distant past too, environmental changes, socio-economical consid- erations, or territorial conflicts between rival tribes would have been among the factors leading to the alterations in the migration paths. Moreover, the emergence of city-states and chiefdoms with newly defined political territories could have forced nomadic tribes to deviate from traditional migratory movements. Before focusing on the invisible nature of archaeology in relation to a small number of semi-nomadic and nomadic groups in the Hittite Kingdom and in Early Iron Age Eastern Anatolia, I will briefly refer to the nature of nomadic invasions and no- madic tribal structures in the Seljuk and Ottoman periods. Nomads in Anatolia: Historical examples The massive invasion of Anatolia by Turkmen tribes starting in 1071 AD was the culmination of a process that had begun much earlier on a smaller scale and slower pace, and recurred in the 13th century during the Mongolian invasion. In Anatolia these nomads of Central Asia found a suitable environment for pastor- alism and pillage. Although they did not impose their nomadic way of life on the indigenous population of Anatolia, farmers increasingly felt their concentrated presence with large flock in the countryside. As for the land and settlement policy Traits of Nomadic People: Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Research in Turkey | 47 of the Seljuks, soon after their conquest of Iran they pushed for the spread of farming in the territories they controlled. As part of this strategy land was also distributed to the local population of Iran and some of the nomadic Turkmen groups that agreed to settle and take up farming.1 However, the large body of nomadic tribes continued to pursue their traditional way of life venturing into Byzantine controlled Anatolia.2 Even after the formation of the Anatolian Seljuk State, the nomads continued to oppose sedentarization and taking up farming. In order to preserve their economic and political autonomy they slowly and gradu- ally retreated to marginal lands. Nevertheless, their wide-scale seasonal migra- tions between the summer and winter pastures continued to be a major cause of friction with farming communities. Often ignoring the political borders of the Anatolian Seljuk State, Turkmen nomads repeatedly penetrated deep into Byzan- tine controlled countryside in southern and western of Anatolia, pillaging villages and destroying cultivated fields. Such actions often resulted in peasants abandon- ing their villages and moving out of the area. In the early Ottoman period the central administration faced with opposition to its authority made moves to curtail the political and military power of the no- madic and semi-nomadic tribal confederations in Anatolia. In the later 14th and early 15th centuries forceful persuasion convinced some to settle in designed state controlled territories. Those that refused were relocated from northern, central and southern Anatolia to sparsely populated areas in western Anatolia, the Bal- kans as far as Albania.3 This policy of the Ottoman state vis-à-vis the troublesome nomadic tribe is somehow reminiscent of the attitude adopted earlier by the Roman administra- tion towards the hostile Galatian nomadic tribes in Anatolia. Already in 278 BC King Nicomedes of Bithynia in need of mercenaries brought over to Anatolia 20,000 nomadic Celts (Gauls), a tribal society which was distinctly stratified. Ac- cording to classical sources they were constantly on the move using baggage wagons and accompanied by auxiliary groups created frequent opportunities to raid and loot cities, towns and villages. Before their arrival in Anatolia, their mi- gratory movements were rarely, if at all, dictated by a need to settle perma- nently.4 Initially at the service of the king of Bithyina, they soon started to raid the rest of the Anatolian countryside at will. These nomadic Celtic tribes, later known as Galatians, had a devastating effect on the farming economy of Anatolia. In addition to offering their services as mercenaries to local kings, they imposed 1 Yakar 2000, 67. 2 Cahen 1968. 3 Lindner 1983; İnalcık 1994; Yakar 2000, 71. 4 For classical sources such as Diodorus, Strabo, Pausanias, Polyaenus, Livy and Memnon, see Mitchell 1993, 15, notes 17, 19–29. 48 | Jak Yakar the payment of tribute on small kingdoms and cities whose land they otherwise threatened with destruction. Some two decades after their arrival in Anatolia, the Celts established their base in the sparsely settled region which was later called Galatia after them. The political vacuum that existed in central Anatolian plateau may have been the reason why they choose this area as the nucleus of their new tribal territory. However, in view of the nomadic way of life the geographic limits of their occupation in central Anatolia were not firmly marked for a number of generations.5 However, it was not until the growing involvement of the Romans in Anatolian affairs in the middle of the 1st century BC that the Trocmi in Pontus and Cappadocia felt the need to build a small number of fortified strongholds (e.g. Tavium, Mithridatium and Posdala).6 They did so in order to consolidate their own political and military power against Rome. Going back to the Ottoman period of the 18th and 19th centuries, competition for land and pasture in the eastern provinces led to conflicts between the government and nomadic tribes. In order to resist the pressures exerted by the central gov- ernment the latter formed large confederations. Unable to restrain them, the pro- vincial governors had no alternative but often turn a blind eye to the independent activities of the tribes with their strong nomadic components and did not involve in their internal conflicts. This delicate balance of power between the state, the local feudal chiefs and the chiefs of nomadic tribes in the remote parts of eastern Anatolia was maintained almost until the formation of the Turkish Republic. It has to be admitted, however, were it not for the local feudal chiefs controlling the ethnically heterogeneous rural sectors in these eastern highlands, physical or po- litical control by the central state administration would have been extremely diffi- cult. The Seljuk and Ottoman records prove that when dealing with large tribes their loyalty to the state could have been obtained only by allowing tribal leaders to retain a good deal of political and economic autonomy. Even as late as in the 19th century large nomadic tribes and chiefdoms wielded considerable political and economic power within the state system and controlled a considerable por- tion of the countryside. One of the well-recorded examples from the Late Ottoman period concerns a Kurdish tribe bearing the name Hayderanlı. Some two centuries ago this tribe controlled the territory northeast of Lake Van. In the summer members of the 5 Mitchell 1993, 51. 6 The Celts in Anatolia consisted of three tribes, namely the Trocmi, the Tolistobogii and the Tectosages. Each of these tribal formations was divided into four sections (tetrarchies), and to each section was assigned a chieftain (tetrarch). Each chieftain ruled with four subordinates; a judge, a military commander and two junior commanders. The council of a total of 12 tetrarchs headed an assembly of three hundred men who handled cases of homicide in their communities. Tetrarchs and judges handled internal disputes; cf. Mitchell 1993, 27, 49, 81. Traits of Nomadic People: Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Research in Turkey | 49 tribe pastured their cattle on the neighbouring mountains, and spent the winter in their villages situated near the northern shore of the lake. This tribe was made up of two divisions headed by two brothers, one in Turkey and the other in north- western Iran. The Turkish division comprised up to 2000 tents (families) and as many armed horsemen. Like other tribes in the Van region, they too did not usu- ally pitch their tents in large clusters in one location. Instead, they organized in scattered groups of five to ten, spreading out down the valleys and up the hills in order to better exploit the pastures and not exhaust their carrying capacity. Fig. 2. Nomad encampment in Eastern Anatolia. 50 | Jak Yakar Fig. 3. Nomad household in the summer pastures of Eastern Anatolia. Come spring, they took their herds first to the lower pastures, gradually moving upwards as the season advanced. They would return from the high grounds as the autumn cold forced them to descend. In times of danger these tribes manned out- posts on the hills and notified the approach of an enemy by beating drums. When the emergency signal was relayed from camp to camp it took very little time for armed men to be called up. In just an hour the tribal chief could have summoned over a hundred and fifty armed horsemen, not including well-armed warriors joining the battle or raiding parties on foot.7 In another part of the highlands a Kurdish tribe known as Badikanlı, which in the early 19th century consisted of 550 households in tents, provides a good example of the troublesome nature of large nomadic tribes. Refusing to submit to the pro- vincial government authority that objected to their nomadic way of life, this tribe retreated to a protected mountain valley between Muș and Harput. They held this mountain tract in lawless independence, permitting neither caravan nor trav- eller to pass through without some form of payment. Eventually, when con- fronted by Ottoman government forces with superior fighting capabilities, they 7 Brant 1840, 414. Traits of Nomadic People: Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Research in Turkey | 51 suffered a severe defeat and surrendered. The punishment meted out to them was harsh and included the confiscation of their territory and weapons. In addition to that, the provincial government forcefully recruited 300 of their warriors into the army, a practice that served to pacify troublesome tribes.8 This policy of recruiting captivated tribal warriors into the regular army instead of executing or selling them as slaves, was already pursued by the Hittites, As- syrians and Urartians. In Urartu for instance even lower echelon tribesmen would have been incorporated into the state system in different capacities. An Urartian inscription (UPD 12), mentioning ‘armed men from the tribes’ that were recruited as members of the royal guard in the new city of King Rusa II at To- prakkale at Van illustrates this quite clearly.9 Although Hittite texts do not directly mention nomads, indirect references sug- gest that such groups probably existed in the Kingdom. The small and socially inferior ethno-cultural community referred to in articles 48–49 of the Hittite Laws as the LU hippara may have been such a group.10 Perhaps recruited to serve in the Hittite military from among the nomadic tribes living in the steppe, moun- tain and desert regions of Anatolia and north Syria, they kept their own group- based social structure. Living in their own settlements members of this group, perhaps like the HAPIRU/HABIRU groups, did not integrate into the Hittite society.11 Additional communities that were not fully sedentary included the Kaska tribes. They were the northern neighbours of the Hittites inhabiting the mountainous central Pontus region. The paucity of identifiable Late Bronze Age settlements in the region discredits claims by certain Hittite kings that by the 13th century BC they fully controlled the regions inhabited by the troublesome Kaska tribes. These tribes who seem to have pursued a semi-nomadic lifestyle often pillaged border villages in Hittite controlled territories, plundering harvested crops and carrying away livestock. Allusions to their semi-nomadic/semi-sedentary mo- bility can also be found in Hittite texts describing the conflicts and confronta- tions with them. The Hittite accounts give the impression that each time the Hit- tite army entered the enemy territory, the main body of the Kaska warriors evaded them, probably regrouping in their well-hidden mountain villages. An example is given in Fragment 13 and 14 of “The Deeds of Suppiluliuma”:12 8 Brant 1840, 354. 9 Diakonoff 1991, 19. 10 Imparati 1982, 235; Yakar 2000, 39. 11 Bottero 1954, 1981; Na’aman 1986. 12 Yakar and Dinçol 1974, 93. 52 | Jak Yakar 13:(3): “The (Kaskeans) assembled nine tribal groups….” (12) “…. (my) father (Mursili referring to Suppilulima) had built fortification behind empty towns of the whole country which had been emptied by the enemy…..” And in connection to Suppiluliuma’s campaign to Masa and Kammalla we hear (E7): “…..in the rear the Kaskean enemy took weapons again, and destroyed the empty towns, which (the king) had built fortifications.” Fragment 14 reports: “When (the king) arrived in the country (he found that) the Kaskean enemy whom (the king) met inside the country consisted of twelve tribes.” The “Annals of Mursili II” report for year 16:13 “The Land of Pala [west-central Black Sea] was a country without defences; no fortified towns or sites to which one could fall back was there at all. It is a country (rather) in its natural state. Though Hutupiyanza [the local leader] had this country to protect, no army stood at his disposal. So he built hideouts in the mountains, the group of men, which he had brought there in small numbers, surrendered nothing to the [Kaska] enemy.” A rather similar chaotic security situation developed in the Pontus region in the 11th century AD with the arrival of Turkmen nomadic pastoralists. Their pres- ence forced the sedentary Greek communities to abandon their villages in the lower elevations and move up to the mountain valleys. We may confidently say that the influx of nomads into the region caused a change in the settlements pat- tern that led to the decline of farming. Archaeological indicators However, the pressure exerted by the Turkmen on farming communities is not archaeologically visible, since no new material culture was introduced. The peas- ants who abandoned their villages moved up with their belongings and cultural traditions to the mountain valleys were they built their new homes. Going back to the Kaska, since the Hittite military campaigns always started in spring, most Kaska tribal communities would have been in any case on their way to the mountain pastures with their herds. Armed confrontations with them did not take place in open country nor involved the siege of towns, supporting the view that these tribes were not fully sedentary. The fact that the Hittite army encountered difficulties in obtaining local supplies of food and wine for its troops during the campaigns in the Kaska populated territories suggests that the region 13 Yakar and Dinçol 1974, 94. Traits of Nomadic People: Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Research in Turkey | 53 was sparsely settled.14 Moreover, the absence of Kaska cemeteries in the alluvial plains and river valleys strengthens the assumption that these tribes may have practiced inverse transhumance, maintaining secondary villages in the lower ele- vations occupied in winter and their principal settlements dispersed in the moun- tain valleys and slopes. When surveying for ancient settlements in the central and eastern Black Sea regions it is important to take into account that the upper limit of permanent rural settlement along the humid northern flanks of the Pontus Mountains is ca. 1000 m. However, isolated hamlets (canik) may be found in heights up to 1450 m, especially in the eastern Pontus. This height is still below the upper limits of barley cultivation.15 Such communities living in mountainous habitats subsist mainly on pastoralism, raising cattle and sheep. Fig. 4. Seasonal occupied wooden houses in the Black Sea mountains. The archaeology of semi-nomads or nomads in Anatolia can best be studied in the Eastern Highlands. Among the numerous sites in the Erzurum plain, Sos Höyük provides a good picture of the fluctuating character of rural settlement 14 Yakar 2000, 299–300; Yakar and Dinçol 1974. 15 Yakar 2000, 287.