UDC 903.05

The article is devoted to a comparative analysis of models of ancient metal production in the Middle East (Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Levant, and Iran) in the 5th - early 2nd millennium BC.The study is based on statistical analysis of author's computer databases on ancient metal products made of copper/bronze, gold, silver, and lead. A number of parameters are proposed to characterize regional models of metal production: production dynamics, distribution of functional groups of products, the role of various metals in production, the ratio of types of copper-based alloys. The general patterns of the origin and development of ancient metallurgy in the Middle East and the peculiarities of each region and period are revealed. There is a connection between the peculiarities of metal production and the stages of socio-economic development of ancient societies.

Keywords: Middle East, Eneolithic, Bronze Age, metal production, databases, statistical analysis, comparative analysis.

Introduction

The attention of researchers is increasingly drawn to the problems of the origin of early metallurgy and metalworking, the spread of technological and cultural innovations, and the role of metal in the development of cultural and social processes of antiquity. The Early Metal Age (Eneolithic and Bronze Age, V-II millennium BC) is a time of the formation of civilizations, intensive interaction of human collectives, and the transfer of cultural and technological achievements over vast distances. Historical and metallurgical research is rapidly developing in Russia and abroad. A series of such works was carried out at the Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Avilova and Chernykh, 1989; Cernyhetal., 1991; Chernykh, 1992; Avilova, 1996, 2001, 2004, 2005, 2008; Avilova, Antonova, and Teneishvili, 1999; Avilova and Orlovskaya, 2001; Chernykh, Avilova, and Orlovskaya, 2002; Avilova, 2008].

The study of ancient metal products of the Middle East is connected with the concept of metallurgical provinces formulated by E. N. Chernykh (Chernykh, 1971). Within the framework of these historical, cultural and technological systems of antiquity, the technology of mining, metallurgy, and metalworking developed, production standards were developed, and contacts were established between different, often very remote territories and societies located at different levels of development [Chernykh, 1992, p.140-171]. The Circumpontan Metallurgical Province (CMP) became the basis of industrial and cultural development in the early and Middle Bronze Ages in a wide area from the Balkans, steppes of Eastern Europe and the Caucasus to the Middle East. The idea of Anatolia, Western Iran, and a number of territories of the Eastern Mediterranean joining the CMC was initially suggested [Chernykh, 1974, p. 386], and then the ancient metal production of Anatolia, the North Caucasus, and Transcaucasia was studied in detail [Avilova and Chernykh, 1989; Cernyh et al., 1991], as well as Mesopotamia [Avilova,2003, p. 386]. 1996], the Levant [Avilova, 2001], and Iran [Avilova, 2004].

The concept of metallurgical provinces corresponds to the direction of modern studies of ancient macro systems (Kohl, 1987). Currently, there are three zones in Eurasia with their own models of metal production: advanced centers of the Middle East; pastoral cultures of steppes and forest areas-

pei-intermediaries in the dissemination of new technologies; conservative crops of the forest zone (Chernykh, Avilova, Orlovskaya, 2002). The progress of natural science research methods, the use of computers for mass material processing, and structural analysis for studying technology (Ryndina, 1998) open up prospects for creating new concepts for the development of ancient metal production.

The territorial scope of the article covers four historical regions of the Middle East-Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Iran, and the Levant. In this zone, the oldest metal production arose (copper products are known here from the IX-VIII millennium BC), early civilizations of the IV-III millennium BC were formed. Undoubtedly, the production and use of metal in geographically and culturally different regions should have shown features of originality. The purpose of the work is to identify common and special features in the metal production of the regions, to characterize them by means of a comparative analysis of specialized computer databases (DB) created by us on ancient metal products. The study is based on the materials of foreign publications, which is associated with the desire to apply the concept of metallurgical provinces to the area of composition of ancient civilizations that to some extent influenced cultural processes in the territory of modern Russia.

The chronological framework of the work covers three periods, interpreted in accordance with the historical and metallurgical periodization based on cultural and technological criteria. Eneolithic (MB) corresponds to the late Ubaid (in calibrated radiocarbon dates 4500-3700 BC), Early Bronze Age (RBV) - Uruk and Jemdet Nasr (3700-2700 BC), Middle Bronze Age (SBV) - Early Dynastic centers (RD 1-3), Akkad, during the third dynasty of Ur, the reign of Hammurabi (2700-1800 BC) [Avilova, Antonova, Teneishvili, 1999, Table 1; Chernykh, Avilova, Orlovskaya, 2002, pp. 83-84, Abb. 3]. In absolute numbers, this is the end of the V-turn of the III and II thousand BC. Chronological comparisons are based on the works of J. Mellaart (1981), E. Porada (1992), M. Voigt and R. Dyson (1992).

Methodology

The research is based on databases on metal products of the early metal era. Their structure consists of 53 fields (features) containing information about the monument; the complex from which the find originates; the category and morphology of the product, its dating, and the material (if there is a spectral analysis, the concentration of 11 chemical elements: Sn, Pb, Zn, Bi, Ag, Sb, As, Fe, Ni, Co, Au), publications. Statistical analysis of the database makes it possible to obtain accurate quantitative and qualitative characteristics of production in each region in a certain period and to make comparisons with other territories by such interrelated characteristics as the distribution of materials by period; finds by functional classes (tools/ weapons, jewelry, vessels, objects of worship, semi-finished products, foundries); the share of various metals in production (copper/bronze, gold, silver, lead); formulation of copper-based alloys. In accordance with the results of the analysis, regional models of metal production are constructed, then they are compared and their correlation with various stages of cultural, historical and socio-economic development of the regions is determined.

Currently, the databases contain information on 60,696 finds from 147 sites: 37,017 objects from 62 monuments in Anatolia, 14,893 out of 7 in Mesopotamia, 5,500 out of 65 in the Levant, and 3,286 out of 13 in Iran. The database on the spectral composition of copper - bronze products includes 1,672 analysis: Anatolia - 658, Iran-518, Levant -279, Mesopotamia-217.

Natural resources

Natural resources are distributed unevenly in the considered zone (Avilova, 2008). Anatolia has rich ore reserves, especially important copper deposits in the area of Ergani Maden. Traces of ancient workings were not found here, although they probably existed: the Neolithic settlement of Chayonyu-tepesi of the VIII - VII millennium BC with numerous finds of native copper is located nearby. Rich copper and lead-bearing silver ores in the upper Euphrates were developed in the Uruk period. There is also a large area of these ores off the northeastern coast of Anatolia. Copper-ore developments of the beginning of the third millennium BC on the Anatolian plateau are described. Traces of mining of tin-bearing ores in the middle of the third millennium BC were found on the southern slopes of the Taurus, but since the ores here are polymetallic, it is possible that they were developed as a source of gold or lead and silver, and not tin.

The Iranian highlands are rich in metal deposits. The article describes the ancient mining of copper ores of the Uruk era (RD 2) in the Veshnove area.

The population of Palestine was familiar with copper ore from the VII millennium BC. e. Ancient evidence of copper mining has been recorded since the IV millennium BC. e. in the area located between the Dead and Red Seas

Figure 1. Distribution of the material by region and period.

a - MV; b - RBV; c-SBV.

Wadi Araba Valley (Timna and Feinan districts). The area is unique in terms of the scale of mining and smelting of ore: 150 - 200 thousand tons of ore were found in Feinan. t of copper slags (Hauptmann et al., 1992).

In Mesopotamia, there are no sources of mineral raw materials, and local metal production was based on imports. Sumerian texts mention the supply of metals from the "Magan country" to the territory of modern Oman, etc.; metal also came from Anatolia and Iran (Moogeu, 1994, p. 247).

Comparative analysis of regional metal production models

1. Distribution of the material by period (tab. 1). In Anatolia, Mesopotamia, and the Levant, metal production in MB is significantly less than 1% of DB, while in Iran alone it is 5 %. In the Levant and Mesopotamia, the number of finds increases by a factor of 100 or more, while in Anatolia and Iran it increases by a factor of 5 and 6, respectively. The transition to SBV is marked by an increase in their number in Anatolia by almost 100 times, Mesopotamia - by 25, the Levant-by 7, and Iran-by 2 times. In general, Mesopotamia is characterized by the most pronounced spasmodic dynamics of the distribution of metal products during the transition from both MB to RBV and from RBV to SBV. The opposite is true in Iran, where there is a smooth increase in production from one period to the next.

In Iran and Anatolia, the tradition of using metal dates back to the pre-Ceramic Neolithic (IX-VII millennia BC). A series of Eneolithic metal finds also occur from these regions. In Palestine, the tradition of using metal is formed later, in Israel. The most interesting picture is in Mesopotamia, where there are no sources of metal and no early evidence of its use, but the growth in the number of metal products is very sharp from one period to another, especially from MB to RBV. Consequently, the RBV has overcome such an obstacle to the development of the region as the lack of its own deposits, and a system for obtaining metal from outside has been established. This was possible in the context of the urban civilization of Uruk with its extensive connections [Algaze, 1989; Avilova, Antonova, Teneishvili, 1999].

A sharp increase in the number of finds in the SBV is also associated with the level of social development: in Mesopotamia and Anatolia, royal necropolises were discovered (Ur, Aladja-heyuk, Khoroztepe); hoards of precious items belonging to local dynasties (Troy, Eskiyapar); in Palestine, temple treasures (Byblos). Monuments of this type are unknown in Iran, although there are hoards of precious metal products and individual burials of the social elite (Tepe Hissar III).

2. Functional classes of products. The material is divided into nine classes according to the function of the products. Class 1 includes tools and weapons (it is not always possible to distinguish between them), Class 2-jewelry and costume details, Class 3-horse harness items, Class 4-protective armor items, Class 5-vessels, Class 6-religious items, Class 7-semi - finished products, 8th - negatives of products on foundries, class 0-undefined objects, fragments. Classes 1 and 2 are the most numerous and significant (Table 1). The functional distribution of the material is related to the chronology and types of monuments. Let's consider the ratio of two main classes-tools/weapons and jewelry (Table 1). 1; fig. 2).

Table 1. Distribution of metal finds taken into account in the study, by period

Note: percentages are shown in parentheses.

Figure 2. The ratio of functional classes of tools/weapons and jewelry in the RBV (1) and SBV (2).

a-Anatolia; b-Mesopotamia; c-Levant; d-Iran.

The most numerous Iranian MB collection (160 finds) is dominated by tools/weapons. The presence of large metal-intensive tools is typical, and in the early period - a series of semi-finished products (ingots from Tepe Sialka III and Tepe Gabristan) [Avilova and Terekhova, 2006]. In Anatolia, on the contrary, there are more decorations than tools/weapons (small objects of simple shapes). In Mesopotamia and the Levant, with a minimal number of finds, the distribution is unimpressive.

New product categories appear in the RBV (vtul-shaped axes, stalk spears). Jewelry predominates in three regions, especially in Iran, where 660 gold beads were found in the Maykop-type burial mound Si Girdan (Trifonov, 2000). The concentration of jewelry is also observed in Mesopotamia, mainly due to the Tepe Gavra necropolis of the Uruk era with gold beads, overlays, etc. These features show the proximity of Iranian metallurgy to Mesopotamia and bring it closer to the Maikop culture in the North Caucasus, where gold jewelry is counted in the thousands (Munchaev, 1975; Piotrovsky, 1996). A special feature of Southern Mesopotamia is a significant proportion of lead vessels from the Ur burial ground of the Jemdet Nasr period. The only region dominated by tools/weapons is the Levant (52 %), with jewelry making up less than 1/3 of the material. There is a high proportion of cult objects and markers of high social status (19 %), such as "scepters" and "crowns" from the Nahal Mishmar treasure (Bar-Adon, 1980).

In the SBV, the morphology of inventory is significantly expanding: there are v-shaped spears, petiolate arrows, a number of types of axes (with a sleeve made of an uninhibited obushny part, anchor-shaped, with paired holes); metal dishes are widely distributed; the maximum variety of jewelry is observed. There are major changes in the distribution of the material. In Anatolia and Mesopotamia, the vast majority of finds relate to jewelry, and only 3% of tools/weapons. Jewelry also prevails in the Levant, although not so much (42 %), and tools/weapons make up about a quarter of the collection. Only in Iran is the ratio of the two leading classes reversed - 34% and 51%, respectively. The maximum functional and morphological diversity is observed in all regions of the SBV: there are from seven to nine functional classes of products.

3. The ratio of metals (copper/bronze, gold, silver, lead) (tab. 3). In general, almost exclusively copper/bronze products are distributed in all regions, other metals are represented by isolated finds: in Anatolia it is a silver ring (Bagesultan XXXIV), in Mesopotamia a gold foil (Ur), in Northern Syria a lead rod

Table 2. Ratio of metals used

Note: percentages are shown in parentheses.

3. Distribution of various metals in the RBW (1) and SBW (2).

See Figure 2 for additional information.

(Amuk E). The largest Iranian collection consists entirely of copper and bronze objects.

There are significant differences in the RBV. In Anatolia, 93% of the material is still copper / bronze. In Iran, it accounts for less than a third of the collection, and gold dominates (70 %). In Mesopotamia, its percentage is also very high (47 %), and copper/ bronze is in second place (45%). It should be noted that gold products also predominate in the North Caucasus during this period. In the Levant, the changes are not so drastic: the base of the collection is copper / bronze (76 %), and the leading precious metal is silver (22%).

In SBV, the strongest shifts are again taking place in three regions. Now Anatolia is dominated by gold. In Mesopotamia, the trend towards the predominance of precious metals is being further developed: they make up 74 % of the material. In Iran, on the contrary, most of the finds are made of copper / bronze, the share of precious metals falls to 13 %. Only in the Levant the distribution remains stable.

The spread of precious metals shows a clear dependence on the mass production of jewelry placed in the burials of the social elite and hoards. If the abundance of gold jewelry in the Si Girdan burial ground (RBV, Western Iran), in the treasures and burials of the Anatolian SSB is consistent with the richness of mineral resources in the regions, then in Mesopotamia the use of precious metals is high (tab. 2), despite the absence of their deposits. Thus, in the northern Mesopotamian Tell Tepe of Gavra, 262 gold ornaments originate from the RBV burial ground. Raw materials were undoubtedly imported, since the monument is located at the intersection of trade routes. Only two gold ornaments were found in the settlement layers of Le Havre belonging to the SBV (burials of this time are unknown here), so it is impossible to say whether the supply of gold to the settlement continued during this period.

In Southern Mesopotamia, the situation is different. Only 13 pieces of jewelry were found in the Ura RBV necropolis, including 4 silver earrings, and no gold. Drastic changes took place in the SBV: 6,600 gold, 3,940 silver, and only 2,999 copper-bronze items were found in the Royal Necropolis of the Urals (Avilova, 2008, Tables 13, 14), which is more than 4 times less than the number of precious items. Consequently, during this period, the flow of precious metal imports was directed to the south of Mesopotamia. Thus, the mass production and consumption of gold and silver products was not determined by the availability of raw materials; just as important, if not more so, was the system of delivery of precious metals and copper.

4. Formulation of copper-based alloys (Table 3). There are two representative series of analyses for MB: 42 for Anatolia and 69 for Iran. In both regions already at this early time, along with metallurgically "pure" copper, without artificial additives, the following materials were used:-

Table 3. Ratio of copper and copper-based alloys used

Note: percentages are shown in parentheses.

4. The ratio of metallurgically "pure" copper and copper-based alloys in MB (1), RBV (2) and SBV (3).

See Figure 2 for additional information.

4, 1). The question of the natural or artificial nature of the arsenic admixture remains debatable. It is impossible to accurately determine this in each case, since the arsenic content in native copper can reach 20 % [Maddin, Stech Wheeler, and Muhly, 1980; Gale, Stos-Gale, and Gilmore, 1985]. Mass analyses have shown that its amount in bronze depends on the function of the product: jewelry often contains up to 20 %, tools / weapons - approx. 5 % [Eaton, McKerrel, 1976, p. 175]. Long-term studies of the Laboratory of Natural Science Methods of the Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences have established that the concentration limit at which artificial alloys start is usually 0.5% for arsenic [Chernykh, 1966, p. 43].

In the RBV, the share of "pure" copper in Iran and Anatolia is significantly reduced; arsenic bronzes dominate everywhere (57-74%) [Avilova, 2008, Table 48] (Figs. 4, 2). The highest rate of copper use is in the Levant. Arsenic bronzes of Mesopotamia and Iran have a specific common feature: about half of the analyses show an increased nickel content (more than 0.3 %), which is typical for the ores of the Talmessi deposit in Iran [Pigott, 1999, S. 111-111] and Oman [Pernicka, 1995]. Nickel impurity is often found in the Maikop bronzes (Chernykh, 1966, pp. 38-39). New analytical studies have shown that 53% of the analyses revealed arsenic-copper-nickel alloys, which is consistent with the presence of arsenic-nickel ore deposits in the North Caucasus [Ryndina, Ravich, and Bystrov, 2008, pp. 196-198, map 1]. This fact highlights the similarities that existed in the RBV between the regions studied, not only in terms of product morphology and large-scale use of gold, but also in the use of certain ores. An important feature of early Bronze metallurgy in the Middle East - the appearance of tin bronzes (including triple alloys Cu+Sn+As) - indicates the search for new alloys and the beginning of the development of new types of ores (cassiterite, stannite).

SBV is characterized by a further decline in the share of "pure" copper products in Iran, where it is almost disappearing, and in the Levant (Figures 4, 3). In Anatolia and Mesopotamia, its use remains low. The use of arsenic bronzes in three regions is noticeably decreasing (38-51%), and only in Iran they are produced in significant volume. Still, about half of the arsenic bronze samples from Mesopotamia and most from Iran show the presence of nickel.

An important feature of SBV metallurgy is the widespread introduction of tin bronzes, including triple Cu+Sn+As. In Mesopotamia, they become the leading ones. Our data are consistent with the results of the Pennsylvania Project [Tadmor et al., 1995, p. 142].

It is obvious that during this period there was an established system of tin delivery. Geologically, its delivery to Mesopotamia and Anatolia from the territory of modern Afghanistan is likely. This point of view is common in the literature, although there is no information about the ancient development of Afghan mines. Sources of tin are mentioned in Sumerian texts of the third millennium BC: the countries of Dilmun, Melukha, Magan, Aratta, and the "tin mountains" located east of Mesopotamia. Some of them are located on the southern shores of the Persian Gulf (Moorey, 1994, pp. 298-300). Traces of tin-bearing ore mining at Kestel point (Turkey) have already been mentioned. The difference in opinion is due to the fact that the ancient development of tin ores in the Middle East is unknown. However, they are found in Central Asia, in the regions of Bukhara and Ferghana. Joint research of German scientists and archaeologists from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan in the Zeravshan Valley revealed large-scale tin mining sites.

A series of radiocarbon dates from the Middle Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age (1800-800 BC). Nearby mining settlements related to the Andronovo culture were located (Parzinger and Boroffka, 2003). It could produce metal for the domestic market, as well as for Iran and / or Mesopotamia, especially since there was an ancient system of routes for the delivery of lapis lazuli from Badakhshan and Kyzylkum (Tosi, 1974).

Conclusion

The most significant feature of early metal production in the Middle East is its deep antiquity. There were two prerequisites for the discovery of native copper, its smelting, and then smelting from ores: the availability of natural resources and the tradition of controlling heat engineering processes developed during the manufacture of lime and gypsum coatings [Pernicka, 1995].

The development of the production of metal products begins in the Eneolithic period (the second half of the fifth millennium BC) in Iran and on a smaller scale in Anatolia. The quantitatively and morphologically representative Iranian MB collection contrasts sharply with the absence of metal in the synchronous Ubaid monuments of Mesopotamia. Apparently, the early metallurgy of Iran is associated with the development of rich mineral resources and the development of exchange between the farmers of the Two Rivers and the population of the Zagra Mountains and the Iranian plateau. Formation of an urban-type civilization in the Two Rivers region with a developed irrigation system, long-distance exchange, and public buildings [Antonova, 1998, pp. 71-72] occurs against the background of a growing demand for metal. It can be assumed that it was from the territory of Iran during the Ubayd period that the technological skills that were perceived and developed in Mesopotamia originated [Pigott, 1999, p. 107, 118]. In this light, the usual "Mesopotamian-centered" model of cultural development in the Middle East needs to be rethought.

The qualitative leap in metal production at the early stage of the Bronze Age is closely related to the processes of urbanization and the formation of early states: the Sumerian society's need for metal sharply increased, and intensive contacts were established with its mining and processing centers in neighboring Iran and Eastern Anatolia. High demand for metal stimulated the development of production and social relations among the population of the Iranian and Anatolian plateaus, the Persian Gulf coast. During this period, Western and Northwestern Iran and Eastern Anatolia formed a single system with the Mesopotamian civilization. Professional metallurgists, metalworkers, and jewelers were to appear there. Their products were distributed in the form of commodity ingots (Avilova and Terekhova, 2006) and finished products, which contributed to the development of morphological and technological standards that functioned in the area of the Uruk monuments proper and in the vast area from the North Caucasus to the Levant, which was more or less affected by the influence of the Uruk civilization.

The foothill territories played an important role in the development of the ancient civilizations of the Middle East. As N. I. Vavilov proved, productive farming, including agriculture, originated not in alluvial valleys, but in foothill zones where wild ancestors of cultivated plants grow (Vavilov, 1987). The oldest metal finds (IX-VII millennia BC) also originate from these zones. The most striking complexes of metal products from the Ubeida (Susa I) and Uruk eras (Tepe Gavra necropolis in Northern Mesopotamia, Arslantepe II treasure in Eastern Anatolia, Maikop antiquities in the North Caucasus) were found in the foothills. Apparently, this indicates the advanced nature of the development of foothill zones in different areas of the economy.

Agricultural products (grain, oil) played a special role in the relations of agricultural communities with mountain tribes of pastoralists and metal producers. Agricultural civilizations also have a number of intellectual achievements: writing, visual motifs, clothing, hairstyles, jewelry that served as signs of social status. This is the pattern of relations with the neighboring populations of Egypt and Mesopotamia, the largest food producers, where high yields created a strategic resource for exchange and contributed to the widespread spread of many elements of agricultural civilizations.

Researchers of long-distance exchange indicate that its objects were not utilitarian objects, but prestigious things, including metal ones. These products, in which the social elite was interested, were a significant factor in the evolution from an egalitarian society to a hierarchical one: they fixed the established system of ranks and administrative organization in the early states. Thus, long-distance trade relations, including the exchange of metal, were established and maintained in the interests of the public elite. The peculiarities of the Early Bronze Age make us associate the progress of Middle Eastern metallurgy with new social needs and organizational capabilities of complex social structures with a centralized economy and political power.

Mesopotamia, Northern Syria, Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia developed a socio-economic model of early city and early state civilization of the Middle Eastern type. Its connection with the natural conditions of the arid zone is obvious: repeated droughts required the organization of labor and control over the distribution, accumulation, and storage of products. Since the late Ubaid, there is evidence of such elite control, as well as monumental public buildings and shrines, and exotic items are found. In subsequent epochs (Uruk, early Dynastic centers, Akkad), signs of centralization and expansionism in Mesopotamian society are clearly expressed. This system is called the temple economy (Ozdogan, 2002). Its appearance was a kind of response to the complexity of physical, geographical, historical and cultural conditions. These factors, together with the constant growth of the population, were of key importance for the formation of centralized control over agricultural work and irrigation systems, consumption, as well as for the creation of food reserves. Stocks of temple granaries could be used in case of crop failure, for exchange, maintaining the power of the elite, organizing armed detachments. The growth of the urban population and the risk of local crop failures were among the reasons that forced Uruk communities to make long-distance trade expeditions and establish colonies far beyond the alluvial valley (Algaze, 1989). It is no coincidence that the Uruk settlements-colonies of Arslantepe, Norshuntepe, Tepecik, Tepe Gabristan, Tepe Sialk IV, etc. are located in ore zones - in Eastern Anatolia, Iran.

A comparison of regional models of metal production in the early Bronze Age indicates that Northern Mesopotamia, Eastern Anatolia, Western and Central Iran, the North Caucasus, and to some extent the Levant entered into a single cultural zone [Andreeva, 1979; Trifonov, 1987] with a common production tradition [Avilova, 2008, pp. 148-149]. The greatest similarity is noted between Anatolia and Mesopotamia, with their abrupt dynamics of metal use during the transition from one period to another, which is probably due to the influence of Mesopotamian city-states on their western neighbors from the Uruk era and later. The agricultural civilization of Mesopotamia overcame such a huge obstacle to the development of metal products as the lack of sources of mineral raw materials, due to its delivery from outside in exchange for food. In the Levant, the spasmodic process is not so obvious. The Iranian model of ancient metallurgy, on the contrary, is characterized by a smooth development with a gradual increase in production volume and features of conservatism, expressed in the leading role of arsenic bronze throughout all the considered epochs.

The development of metal production in the Middle Period of the Bronze Age took place against the background of the interaction of early states: early dynastic centers in Southern Mesopotamia, early state structures in Anatolia, the Akkadian power in the north of the Two Rivers, and Elamite centers in Southwestern Iran. All regions are marked by social stratification, monumental urban architecture with temples and palaces, ritual complexes, hoards of precious things, and a series of cult objects. In the morphology of inventory, the features of local originality are growing. A single cultural and industrial zone no longer existed, ties with the North Caucasus were cut off, and autonomous development took place there.

List of literature

Avilova L. I. Metal of Mesopotamia in the Early and Middle Bronze Age. ancient history. - 1996. - N4. - p. 68-81.

Avilova L. I. Ancient bronzes of the Levant // RA. - 2001. - N1. - P. 15-26.

Avilova L. I. Ancient Bronzes of Iran. Eneolithic - Middle Bronze Age / / KSIA. - 2004. - Issue 216. - pp. 3-14.

Avilova L. I. Metal of Western Asia (Eneolithic - Middle Bronze Age) / / OPUS: Interdisciplinary research in Archeology. - 2005. - Issue 4. - p. 11-28.

Avilova L. I. Metal of the Middle East: Models of production in the Eneolithic, Early and Middle Bronze Age. - Moscow: Monuments of History. mysli Publ., 2008, 229 p. (in Russian)

Avilova L. I., Antonova E. V. Teneishvili T. O. Metallurgical production in the Southern zone of the Circumpongi metallurgical province in the Early Bronze Age // RA. - 1999. - N 1. - p. 51-66.

Avilova L. I., Orlovskaya L. B. Istoriko-metallurgicheskie i radiocarbon dannye po Tsirkumpongiyskoi metallurgicheskoi province [Historical and metallurgical and radiocarbon databases on the Circumpong Metallurgical Province].

Avilova L. I., Terekhova N. N. Standard metal ingots in the Middle East during the Eneolithic - Bronze Age. - 2006. - Issue 220. - p. 14-33.

Avilova L. I., Chernykh E. N. Asia Minor in the system of metallurgical provinces // Natural Science methods in Archeology, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1989, pp. 31-83.

Andreeva M. V. Ob izobrazheniyakh na serebryanykh maikopskikh sosudakh [On images on silver Maykop vessels].

Antonova E. V. Mesopotamia on the way to the first states. - M.: "East Lit." of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1998. - 223 p.

Vavilov N. I. Proiskhozhdenie i geografiya kul'turnykh rasteniy [Origin and geography of cultivated plants], Nauka Publ., 1987, 327 p.

Munchaev R. M. Kavkaz na zare bronzovogo veka [The Caucasus at the dawn of the Bronze Age], Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1975, 415 p.

Izdeliya iz zolotogo i serebryano na Severnom Kavkaze v epokhu ranney bronzy [Gold and silver products in the North Caucasus during the Early Bronze Age]. Ermitazhnye chteniya pamyati B. B. Piotrovsky: Tez. dokl. - SPb.: Gos. Hermitage, 1996, pp. 23-28.

Ryndina N. V. Drevneishie metalloobrabatyvayushchee proizvodstvo Yugo-Vostochnoy Evropy [The oldest metalworking production in South-Eastern Europe]. Moscow: Editorial URSS, 1998. -288 p.

Ryndina N. V., Ravich I. G., Bystrov S. V. On the origin and properties of arsenic-nickel bronzes of the Maikop culture of the North Caucasus (Early Bronze Age) / / Archeology of the Caucasus and the Middle East, Moscow: Taus, 2008, pp. 196-221.

Trifonov V. A. Nekotorye voprosy peredneaziatskikh svyazi maikopskoy kul'tury [Some issues of the peredneaziatskikh svyazi maikop culture]. KSIA, 1987, issue 192, pp. 18-26.

Trifonov V. A. Kurgany maikopskogo tipa v Severo-Zapadnom Irane [Mounds of the Maikop type in North-Western Iran]. St. Petersburg: Aleteya Publ., 2000, pp. 244-264.

Chernykh E. N. Istoriya drevneysey metallurgii Vostochnoi Evropy [History of the oldest metallurgy in Eastern Europe]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1966, 144 p.

Chernykh E. N. Ob osnovnykh etapakh drevneyshikh metallurgii medi na territorii Bol'garii (4 - nachalo 1 ka B.C.) [On the main stages of the oldest copper metallurgy in Bulgaria (4th-early 1st millennium BC)]. Academia litterarum Bulgaria: Primus congressus studiorum Thracicorum. Serdicae. - Thracia, 1974. -Vol. 3. - P. 379 - 395.

Algaze G. The Uruk expansion: cross-cultural exchange in early Mesopotamian civilization // Current Anthropology. - 1989. - Vol. 30. - P. 571 - 608.

Avilova L.I. Regional models of metal production in Western Asia in the Chalcolithic, Early and Middle Bronze Ages // Trabajos de Prehistoria. - 2008. - Vol. 65, N 1. -P. 55 - 73.

Bar-Adon P. The cave of the treasure: The finds from the caves in Nahal Mishmar. - Jerusalem: Israeli Exploration Society, 1980. -266 p.

Cernyh E.N., Avilova L.L., Barceva T.B., Orlovskaja L.B., Tenejsvili T.O. The Circumpontic metallurgical province as a system // East and West. - 1991. -Vol. 41, N 1 - 4. - P. 11 - 45.

Chernykh E.N. Earliest stage of metallurgy in Circumpontic zone // VIII Congres Internationale des sciences prehistoriques etprotohistoriques. - Belgrade, 1971. - P. 1 - 12.

Chernykh E.N. Ancient metallurgy in the USSR: The Early Metal Age. - Cambridge: Cambr. Univ. Press, 1992. -416 p.

Chernykh E.N., Avilova L.L., Orlovskaya L.B. The Circumpontic metallurgical province: from unification to disintegration // Der Anschnitt: Anatolian metal II. - 2002. -Beih. 15. -S. 83 - 100.

Eaton E.R., McKerrel H. Near Eastern alloying and some textual evidence for the early use of arsenical copper // World Archaeology. - 1976. - Vol. 8, N2. - P. 169 - 191.

Hauptmann A., Begemann T., Heitkemper E., Pernicka E., Schmitt-Strecker S. Early copper production at Feinan, Wadi Arabah, Jordan: The composition of ores and copper // Archaeomaterials. - 1992. - Vol. 6. - P. 1 - 33.

Gale N.H., Stos-Gale Z.A., Gilmore G.R. Alloy types and copper sources of Anatolian copper alloy artifacts // Anatolian Studies. - 1985. -Vol. 35. -P. 143 - 173.

Kohl Ph. The ancient economy, transferable technologies and the Bronze-Age world-system: A view from the Northeastern frontier of the Ancient Near East // Centre and periphery in the Ancient world. - Cambridge: Cambr. Univ. Press, 1987. -P. 13 - 24.

Maddin R., Stech Wheeler T., Muhly J. Distinguishing artifacts made of native copper // J. of Archaeological Science. - 1980. -Vol. 7. -P. 211 - 225.

Mellaart J. The prehistoric pottery from the Neolithic to the beginning of EB IV, a. 7000 - 2500. - Oxford, 1981. -386 p. - (BAR; N 98).

Moorey P.R.S. Ancient Mesopotamian materials and industries. - Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1994. - 414 p.

Ozdogan M. The Bronze Age in Thrace in relation to the emergence of complex societies in Anatolia and in the Aegean // Der Anschnitt: Anatolian metal II. - 2002. - Beih. 15. -S. 67 - 76.

Parzinger H., Boroffka N. Das Zinn der Bronzezeit in Mittelasien I. Die siedlungsarchaologischen Forschungen im Umfeld der Zinnlagerstatten // Archaologie in Iran und Turan. - 2003. - Bd. 5. - 328 S.

Pernicka E. Gewinnung und Verbreitung der Metalle in prahistorischer Zeit // Jahrbuch des romisch-germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz. - 1995. - Bd. 37 (1). - S. 21 - 129.

Pigott V. A heartland of metallurgy: Neolithic/Chalcolithic metallurgical origins on the Iranian Plateau // Der Anschnitt: The beginnings of metallurgy. - 1999. - Beih. 9. - S. 107 - 120.

Porada E., Hansen D.P., Dunham S., Babcock S.H. The chronology of Mesopotamia, ca. 7000 - 1600 B.C. // Chronologies in Old World archaeology / Ed. by R. Ehrich. -Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press, 1992. -P. 156 - 188.

Tadmor M., Kedem D., Begemann E., Hauptmann A., Pernicka E., Schmitt-Strecker S. The Nahal Mishmar hoard from the Judean desert: Technology, composition and provenance // Atiqot. - 1995. - Vol. 27. - P. 95 - 148.

Tosi M. The problem of turquoise in protohistoric trade on the Iranian plateau // Studi di Paletnologia, Paleoantropologia, Paleontologia e Geologia del Quaternario. - 1974. - Vol. 2. -P. 147 - 162.

Voigt M., Dyson R. The chronology of Iran, ca. 8000 - 2000 B.C. // Chronologies in Old World archaeology / Ed. by R. Ehrich. - Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press, 1992. - P. 122 - 154.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 22.05.09.

Permanent link to this publication: