Chipped Stone Technology of the Earliest Agricultural Village in … · Obsidian was most likely imported from sources in the southern Caucasus, and its geochem - ical analyses are

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303006906

Chipped Stone Technology of the Earliest Agricultural Village in the Southern

Caucasus: Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe (the Beginning of the 6 th Millennium BC)

Article · January 2016

CITATION

1READS

618

1 author:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

At present I am working on Neolithic sites of Southern Caucasus. View project

Wadi Ziqlab Project and Neolithic of Northern Jordan View project

Seiji Kadowaki

Nagoya University

52 PUBLICATIONS 447 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Seiji Kadowaki on 13 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303006906_Chipped_Stone_Technology_of_the_Earliest_Agricultural_Village_in_the_Southern_Caucasus_Haci_Elamxanli_Tepe_the_Beginning_of_the_6_th_Millennium_BC?enrichId=rgreq-cad3f985445b1f9706b16ee797db3f86-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMwMzAwNjkwNjtBUzozNjEwODA3NTM4MDMyNjRAMTQ2MzA5OTc2ODIwNw%3D%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdfhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/303006906_Chipped_Stone_Technology_of_the_Earliest_Agricultural_Village_in_the_Southern_Caucasus_Haci_Elamxanli_Tepe_the_Beginning_of_the_6_th_Millennium_BC?enrichId=rgreq-cad3f985445b1f9706b16ee797db3f86-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMwMzAwNjkwNjtBUzozNjEwODA3NTM4MDMyNjRAMTQ2MzA5OTc2ODIwNw%3D%3D&el=1_x_3&_esc=publicationCoverPdfhttps://www.researchgate.net/project/At-present-I-am-working-on-Neolithic-sites-of-Southern-Caucasus?enrichId=rgreq-cad3f985445b1f9706b16ee797db3f86-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMwMzAwNjkwNjtBUzozNjEwODA3NTM4MDMyNjRAMTQ2MzA5OTc2ODIwNw%3D%3D&el=1_x_9&_esc=publicationCoverPdfhttps://www.researchgate.net/project/Wadi-Ziqlab-Project-and-Neolithic-of-Northern-Jordan?enrichId=rgreq-cad3f985445b1f9706b16ee797db3f86-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMwMzAwNjkwNjtBUzozNjEwODA3NTM4MDMyNjRAMTQ2MzA5OTc2ODIwNw%3D%3D&el=1_x_9&_esc=publicationCoverPdfhttps://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-cad3f985445b1f9706b16ee797db3f86-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMwMzAwNjkwNjtBUzozNjEwODA3NTM4MDMyNjRAMTQ2MzA5OTc2ODIwNw%3D%3D&el=1_x_1&_esc=publicationCoverPdfhttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Seiji-Kadowaki?enrichId=rgreq-cad3f985445b1f9706b16ee797db3f86-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMwMzAwNjkwNjtBUzozNjEwODA3NTM4MDMyNjRAMTQ2MzA5OTc2ODIwNw%3D%3D&el=1_x_4&_esc=publicationCoverPdfhttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Seiji-Kadowaki?enrichId=rgreq-cad3f985445b1f9706b16ee797db3f86-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMwMzAwNjkwNjtBUzozNjEwODA3NTM4MDMyNjRAMTQ2MzA5OTc2ODIwNw%3D%3D&el=1_x_5&_esc=publicationCoverPdfhttps://www.researchgate.net/institution/Nagoya-University?enrichId=rgreq-cad3f985445b1f9706b16ee797db3f86-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMwMzAwNjkwNjtBUzozNjEwODA3NTM4MDMyNjRAMTQ2MzA5OTc2ODIwNw%3D%3D&el=1_x_6&_esc=publicationCoverPdfhttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Seiji-Kadowaki?enrichId=rgreq-cad3f985445b1f9706b16ee797db3f86-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMwMzAwNjkwNjtBUzozNjEwODA3NTM4MDMyNjRAMTQ2MzA5OTc2ODIwNw%3D%3D&el=1_x_7&_esc=publicationCoverPdfhttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Seiji-Kadowaki?enrichId=rgreq-cad3f985445b1f9706b16ee797db3f86-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMwMzAwNjkwNjtBUzozNjEwODA3NTM4MDMyNjRAMTQ2MzA5OTc2ODIwNw%3D%3D&el=1_x_10&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

Proceedings, 9th ICAANE, Basel 2014, Vol. 3, 709–722

Seiji Kadowaki – Farhad Guliyev – Yoshihiro Nishiaki

Chipped Stone Technology of the Earliest Agricultural Village in the Southern Caucasus: Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe (the Beginning of the 6th Millennium BC)

Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe provides new evidence for the Neolithization in the southern Caucasus as it represents one of the oldest agricultural villages in this region, corresponding to the initial phase of the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture. This paper reports chipped-stone tech-nology of this site and discusses its possible indigenous and foreign links.

Neolithic Agricultural Villages in the Southern Caucasus

The southern Caucasus is located at a northern fringe of the Fertile Crescent, where early management of cereal plants and major livestock species started more than 10,000 years ago. Such a geographic position raises the question of whether the domestication of indig-enous plants and animals took place also in the southern Caucasus, or the domestication process in this region occurred secondarily under the influences from the advanced centers to the south. However, our current knowledge to answer this question is limited due to the scarcity of data on chronology, material cultures, settlement patterns, and subsistence prac-tices for the early part of the Neolithic.

In the southern Caucasus, currently known evidence for the oldest agricultural settlements comes from Pottery Neolithic sites grouped under a chrono-cultural unit, called the «Sho-mutepe-Shulaveri» or «Shulaveri-Shomu» culture, which are dated to the 6th millennium cal. BC. These early agricultural sites are formed in anthropogenic mounds (tepe) mainly dis-tributed in the middle course of the Kura and Araxes Rivers (fig. 1). Such tepe sites resulted from repeated constructions of mud-walled buildings for residence and various domestic activities including tool production, food processing, and cereal/tool storage (Kadowaki et al. 2015). Botanical and faunal remains from these sites are dominated by domestic species, such as wheat, barley, legumes, sheep, goats, and cattle (Badalyan et al. 2010; Lyonnet et

710 Kadowaki – Guliyev – Nishiaki

al. 2012). Lithic assemblages include abundant sickle elements as well as a large size and quantity of milling tools, indicating frequent practices of cereal harvesting and processing (Lyonnet et al. 2012). Bone tool industry is well developed with a variety of types (e.g., awls, spatulas, and hammers) made of domestic animals (Narimanov 1992). Pottery is also a unique feature of the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture, whose chronological and geographic variations have been suggested by the kinds of temper and decoration patterns (Chataigner 1995). In addition, a few painted fine wares resembling those of the Halaf culture indicate a foreign cultural link to Upper Mesopotamia (Narimanov 1992).

In this way, the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture can be considered a kind of terminus ante quem for the development of agricultural socio-economy in the southern Caucasus. Thus, the question of when and how this cultural entity emerged is a major concern in studying the Neolithization in the southern Caucasus. From this perspective, notable recent discover-ies are the initial phases of the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture at lower levels of Aratashen, Aknashen-Khatunarkh, and Masis Blur in the middle Araxes region (Arimura et al. 2010; Badalyan/Harutyunyan 2014; Hayrapetyan et al. 2014). Although these levels represent fully agricultural settlements, they have yielded very few pottery sherds, one of the hallmarks of the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture; they dated to early 6th millennium cal. BC, indicating that

Fig. 1. Map of the southern Caucasus, showing the location of Neolithic sites affiliated with the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture. (1) Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe and Göytepe, (2) Guseingulutepesi, (3) Shomutepe, Gargalartepesi, Toiretepe, (4) Imiris Gora, Shulaveri Gora, Khramis Didi Gora, (5) Aruchlo I, (6) Aratashen, (7) Aknashen-Khatunarkh.

711Chipped Stone Technology of the Earliest Agricultural Village in the Southern Caucasus

the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture is preceded by a pre-pottery phase, which should provide new insights into the Neolithization process in the southern Caucasus.

This paper reports a new discovery of such an initial phase of the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture from Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, west Azerbaijan. The site is located in the middle Kura Valley, where many Neolithic tepe sites are situated (fig. 1). The excavations at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe in the 2012–2014 seasons by the Azerbaijani-Japanese mission revealed that the site mostly consists of Neolithic deposits dated to the beginning of the 6th millennium cal. BC, providing a rare opportunity to focus on the investigation of the initial phase of the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture.

Haci Elamxanli Tepe (Azerbaijan)

The site was discovered in 2011 during a survey around Göytepe (ca. 145m in diameter with 11m-thick Neolithic deposits), one of the largest Neolithic sites in the southern Caucasus, where the excavations by the Azerbaijani-Japanese mission since 2008 revealed successive agricultural settlements dated to the mid 6th millennium cal. BC and material cultures affili-ated with the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture (Guliyev/Nishiaki 2012, 2014; Kadowaki et al. 2015). Göytepe is located only 1.5 km apart from Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, which is a small

Fig. 2. A. Topographic map of Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, showing the excavation squares (shaded areas) in the 2012 and 2013 seasons. B. Plan of mud-brick buildings and other architectural features in Level 3 of Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.

B A


mound, measuring 60m x 80m with a height of 1.5m (fig. 2A). The excavations of a 10m x 10m square near the top of the tepe uncovered Neolithic deposits of ca. 1.5m thickness that are divided into four levels according to the stratigraphic sequence of mud-brick build-ings. Twelve radiocarbon dates from Levels 1–4 range approximately between 5,950 and 5,800 cal. BC, closely predating the earliest occupation at Göytepe (Nishiaki et al. 2015a). Thus, these two neighboring sites are likely to represent successive occupations by Neolithic inhabitants, i.e., from Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe to Göytepe.

Given such a chronological and geographical proximity between the two sites, it is not surprising that the two sites share basic characteristics of material cultures and agro-pas-toral economy. The settlements at both sites consist of round mud-brick buildings, around which many architectural features (e.g., storage bins and hearths) as well as domestic refuse (e.g., lithics, bones, charred plants, and ash) are densely distributed (fig. 2B). However, a noticeable characteristic of Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe is the extreme scarcity of pottery, cor-responding to the initial phase of the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture. In each of the levels, only a few sherds have been found in comparison to 1,300–3,300 pieces of chipped stones, and such a small sherd assemblage notably includes two fine wares painted in geometric patterns reminiscent of the Samarra or early Halaf wares (Nishiaki et al. 2013, 2015a). The scarcity of pottery, however, is not the only chrono-cultural marker of the initial phase of the Shomutepe-Shulaveri, but its unique features encompass other material cultures, such as architecture, lithics, and bone artifacts, as well as subsistence practices represented by faunal and botanical remains (Nishiaki et al. 2013, 2015a, 2015b).

The following describes chipped stone assemblages from Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe (ca. 8, 400 pieces excavated from Neolithic Levels 1–4 in the 2012 and 2013 seasons), and discusses some techno-typological aspects that may characterize the initial phase of the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture.

Chipped Stone Technology

Raw MaterialsObsidian is the major raw material for chipped stone artifacts, followed by red brown flint, green tuff, red dacite/rhyolite among other kinds. The proportions of obsidian is 45%–57% in the assemblages from Square M10, where excavated sediments were sieved, while the proportion of obsidian increases to 57%–81% in the non-sieved assemblages from Squares L10, L11, and M11.


Among these raw material types, obsidian provides the best flaking quality, and its products occur in a wide range of size (i.e., from large blades or prismatic cores to chips). Obsidian was most likely imported from sources in the southern Caucasus, and its geochem-ical analyses are in progress for identifying specific sources. Red brown flint and green tuff are fine- to medium-grained. Red brown flint was probably obtained from outcrops in the upstream of the Aghstafa River, ca. 40–60 km away from the site. Various volcanic rocks and green tuff are locally available from river beds or outcrops within the range of 10km from the site.

Core Reduction MethodsThe production of blades and bladelets by unidirectional flaking is indicated by a large number of blade/bladelet blanks (more than 900 pieces), single-platform blade/bladelet cores (n=15; fig. 3), and numerous core tablets (n=58), some of which retain blade/bladelet scars. Obsidian is mainly used for the production of regular blades/bladelets, while bladelets of irregular forms are made also of other raw material types, such as green tuff and red brown flint (fig. 3.3).

Notably, the prismatic blade cores include three complete specimens measuring 95–170 mm in length. The largest core (fig. 3.7) is circular in the cross-section and shows irregular blade or flake scars on the working surface. On the other hand, the other two blade cores (fig. 3.5–6) are flattened in the cross section and show regular, parallel blade scars on their working surfaces that extend about half of the periphery of their striking platform. The two cores have ridges abraded or slightly battered near the periphery of the working surfaces or the back sides. These rounded ridges may have resulted from the stabilization of the cores with vices during their reduction for detaching blades. Such a technique along with regular blade scars indicates the employment of pressure flaking, as suggested for the assemblages from Aratashen and Aknashen-Khatunarkh (Badalyan et al. 2010).

There are also several complete cores for bladelets (fig. 3.1–3). Because they are distinc-tively smaller than the blade cores, the bladelet cores are likely to have been separately set up rather than exploited continuously from larger blade cores. Such a purposeful production of bladelets is probably linked with their selective use for trapezes, as mentioned below.

The assemblages also include numerous flakes of various raw materials. Non-obsidian raw materials are mainly exploited for producing flakes of irregular or elongated forms, some of which served as blanks of retouched tools, such as sickle elements and scrapers. Obsid-ian flakes are also used as blanks of some retouched tools, such as steep round scrapers and splintered pieces. Obsidian flakes should have occurred as byproducts in the preparation or maintenance of prismatic cores. In addition, flake removals are observable on exhausted blade/bladelet cores made of obsidian (fig. 3.4).


Fig. 3. Chipped stone artifacts from Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe. (1–3) Bladelet cores, (4) Blade core re-used for flake production, (5–7) Blade cores. (1, 2, 4–7) Obsidian, (3) Red brown flint.


Retouched ToolsTables 1 and 2 show the frequencies of raw material types and blank forms by retouched tool types. Retouched tools are primarily made on obsidian blades/bladelets, followed by obsidian flakes and blanks of other raw materials. Tool types are characterized by high pro-portions of burins and retouched/nibbled pieces in addition to several unique types, such as trapezes, sickle elements, and steep round scrapers.

Trapezes constitute a microlithic component as they are made on bladelets segmented by snapping or oblique truncation (fig. 4.1–19). They are mostly made of obsidian but include a few pieces of red-brown flint. From snapped ends, flat retouch is sometimes made on the dorsal surface. These retouch methods are observable on some bladelet segments (that are not exactly trapezoidal in shape) recovered together with trapezes in the same contexts or in close proximity. The bladelet segments with such unique retouch and recovery contexts are classed here as unfinished trapezes.

Burins, the most abundant tool type, are mostly made on obsidian blades, and exhibit various types of facets, including angle, dihedral, and transversal types (fig. 4.21–25). Angle burin facets occur on (often obliquely) truncated ends or snapped ends. Notably, many burin facets are overshot, removing the other end. We recovered more than 200 burin spalls, some of which show alternate flaking scars at their tips that may have been used as borers.

Sickle elements are blade segments or flakes with glossed edges (fig. 5.1–8). Although blades are the main blank form, the use of flakes (particularly of non-obsidian raw material) is more frequent than other tool types. Glossed edges are either plain or slightly retouched, while non-glossed sides are often backed or retouched.

Retouched or nibbled pieces include blades and flakes with a varying degrees and patterns of retouch on the edges (fig. 5.10–12). Those with smaller, marginal retouch (i.e., nibbling) are classed as nibbled pieces. When retouched edges show denticulated or notched forms, they are classed as denticulates or notches (fig. 5.9).

Scrapers include a distinct subtype, i.e., steep round scrapers made on thick flakes of various raw material types, such as obsidian, green tuff, red dacite/rhyolite among others (fig. 5.13–14). Their round forms are created by steeply retouched edges, and the edges of several pieces are partly rounded due to use-wear. Another possible use-wear is matted sur-faces with many scratches on the ventral side of obsidian steep scrapers.

Discussion and Conclusion

Chipped stone technology of Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, as described above, is broadly similar to those of Göytepe and other sites affiliated with the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture. They are primarily characterized by the production of obsidian blades from single-platform prismatic


Fig. 4. Chipped stone artifacts from Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe. (1–19) Trapezes including broken or unfinished pieces, (20) Borer, (21 and 22) Dihedral burins, (23–25) Angle burins on truncation. All are made of obsidian except for No. 8 that is made of red brown flint.


Fig. 5. Chipped stone artifacts from Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe. 1–8: Sickle elements with glossed edges (marked in grey). 9: Denticulated blade. 10/12: Retouched blades. 11. Nibbled blade. 13–14: Steep round scrapers. 1–3, 5, 9–12: Obsidian. 6–8: Red brown flint. 13: Red dacite/rhyolite. 4/14: Unidentified raw materials (non-obsidian).


cores, some of which indicate the employment of pressure flaking. Obsidian blades are the major blanks for various retouched tools. There are, however, several characteristics of Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe in the use of raw materials, the core reduction methods, and the retouched tools, in comparison with other sites of the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture. First, the pro-portion of obsidian at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe (45%–57% for sieved assemblages, 57%–81% for non-sieved assemblages) is noticeably smaller than those in the later phase of the Sho-mutepe-Shulaveri culture, which reportedly accounts for 84%–87% (Korobkova 1996: 74). This suggests that local raw materials are more frequently used at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe. Second, the chipped stones of Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe clearly include a microlithic component in the core reduction technology (i.e., the production of blades as well as bladelets) and the retouched tools (i.e., trapezes made on bladelets). Although a few trapezes are also present at Göytepe, they occur more frequently at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe in association with many bladelet cores and blanks. Another characteristic tool type at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe is steep round scrapers made on thick flakes of various raw material types including both obsidian and locally available rocks.

The above techno-typological aspects of chipped stones from Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe may characterize the initial phase of the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture. This proposal can be further examined by more detailed comparisons with the later assemblages, such as Göytepe, or with other assemblages of the initial phase, such as lower levels at Aratashen, Aknashen-Khatunarkh, and Masis Blur. For such inter-site comparisons, it is important to consider whether sieving was employed to collect artifacts from excavated sediments because it should significantly affect the recovery rate of microlithic components (e.g., trapezes and bladelets) that may characterize the initial phase of the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture.

If the initial phase of the Shomutepe-Shulaveri can be diagnosed by the occurrence of microlithic technology, it may help us examine the origin of the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture through the comparison with assemblages of earlier time periods or of other regions. For example, microlithic technology may have persisted from the late Pleistocene to the early Holocene in the southern Caucasus, according to the assemblages from Kotias Klde and Kmlo-2. The Mesolithic assemblage of Kotias Klde Layer B is characterized by microliths, including both non-geometric (e.g., backed or truncated bladelets) and geometric forms (e.g., scalene or isosceles triangles) (Meshveliani et al. 2007). The early Holocene assemblages at Kmlo-2 also include a high proportion (30%) of microliths dominated by backed bladelets and scalene bladelets with some geometric forms (Arimura et al. 2009, 2010). In comparison with these earlier assemblages, the proportion and variety of microliths at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe are quite limited because the microlithic tool type includes only trapezes that account for less than 5% even in the sieved assemblages. In addition, the retouching technique of trapezes differs between Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe and Kmlo-2. Trapezes at Hacı Elamxanlı are made by segmenting bladelets either by snapping or oblique truncation on the dorsal


surface. The trapezes are sometimes thinned by flat invasive retouch from segmented ends. These methods appear different from those at Kmlo-2, where bifacial retouch is observable on illustrated trapezes (Arimura et al. 2009: 18). In addition, Kmlo-2 is also characterized by «Kmlo tools» that are defined by continuous, parallel retouch by pressure flaking on lateral sides and abrasion traces on the ventral surface (Petrosyan et al. 2014). We have not identified this tool type at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe although some of the retouched blades show continuous squamous retouch (fig. 5.10). As for subsistence practices at Kmlo-2, all the identifiable faunal and botanical remains are wild (Arimura et al. 2010).

On the other hand, the trapeze dominant microliths at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe may be more comparable to the assemblage from Layer A2 at Kotias Klde, western Georgia. A brief remark on this layer mentions transverse arrowheads/trapezes, ventrally retouched denticulates, and flake scrapers (Meshveliani et al. 2007). Another possible comparable example is the collection from Anaseuli I, also in western Georgia, which includes trapezes, abundant burins, and steep scrapers (Korobkova 1996; Meshveliani 2013). Although these sites are reported to be «Neolithic» or «aceramic Neolithic», their chronological or subsist-ence records are too scarce to determine whether they represent a transitional stage from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. In this way, currently available data on the local cultural sequence are too limited for us to determine whether the trapeze dominant microliths at Hacı Elamxanlı derived indigenously from the more frequent and varied microliths during the Mesolithic or the early Holocene.

On the other hand, trapezes at Hacı Elamxanlı may represent part of regional cultural phenomena contemporary with Pottery Neolithic sites in the Middle East, where similar trapezes occur (Nishiaki et al. 2013). In the Levant, Mesopotamia, and Zagros regions, these Neolithic trapezes (along with other geometrics) are considered to have no continuous link with the microliths during the Epipalaeolithic (Nishiaki 1993). Notably, the retouch-ing methods for producing trapezes also indicate this foreign cultural link. As described above, the retouch methods at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe (i.e., segmenting blades with snapping or oblique truncation with occasional flat retouch on the dorsal surface) are different from those at Kmlo-2 but find some parallels in the trapezes at Pottery Neolithic sites in Upper Mesopotamia, including those contemporaneous with Hacı Elamxanlı, such as Levels 4–10 at Sabi Abiyad (Copeland 1996).

In this way, future studies are necessary to determine whether the local Mesolithic or the foreign Pottery Neolithic, or both, have cultural links to the chipped stone technology, particularly its microlithic components, at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe because this interpretation has direct relevance to our assessment on the roles of indigenous hunter-gatherers or demic/cultural diffusions from Anatolia or Upper Mesopotamia in the formation of Neolithic socio-economy in southern Caucasus.


OB RB flint Green tuff Red dacite Others (non-OB) Total

Trapeze (n=21) 86% 14% 0% 0% 0% 100%

Unfinished trapeze (n=23) 96% 4% 0% 0% 0% 100%

Sickle element (n=56) 30% 30% 13% 0% 27% 100%

Scraper (n=44) 30% 0% 11% 18% 41% 100%

Burin (n=671) 98% 1% 0% 0% 1% 100%

Denticulate (n=72) 90% 1% 0% 4% 4% 100%

Notch (n=32) 94% 0% 0% 3% 3% 100%

Retouched piece (n=319) 89% 2% 1% 5% 4% 100%

Nibbled piece (n=180) 98% 0% 0% 0% 2% 100%

Borer (n=13) 92% 0% 0% 0% 8% 100%

Splintered piece (n=73) 99% 0% 0% 0% 1% 100%

Truncation (n=29) 93% 0% 0% 0% 7% 100%

Others (n=1) 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

Table 1. Frequency of raw material types by retouched tool types at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe. OB: obsidian, RB flint: Red brown flint.

Blade/let Flake Others or unknown Total

Trapeze (n=21) 90% 0% 10% 100%

Unfinished trapeze (n=23) 100% 0% 0% 100%

Sickle element (n=56) 61% 36% 4% 100%

Scraper (n=44) 5% 86% 9% 100%

Burin (n=671) 92% 5% 3% 100%

Denticulate (n=72) 82% 17% 1% 100%

Notch (n=32) 69% 31% 0% 100%

Retouched piece (n=319) 71% 29% 0% 100%

Nibbled piece (n=180) 96% 4% 0% 100%

Borer (n=13) 38% 15% 46% 100%

Splintered piece (n=73) 41% 52% 7% 100%

Truncation (n=29) 97% 3% 0% 100%

Others (n=1) 0% 0% 100% 100%

Table 2. Frequency of blank forms by retouched tool types at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.


Bibliography

Arimura, M./Badalyan, R./Gasparyan, B./Chataigner, C., 2010. Current Neolithic Research in Armenia.Neo-Lithics 1/10, 77–85.

Arimura, M./Chataigner, C./Gasparyan, B., 2009. Kmlo 2. An Early Holocene Site in Armenia. Neo-Lithics 2/09, 17–19.

Badalyan, R./Harutyunyan, A., 2014. Aknashen–The Late Neolithic Settlement of the Ararat Valley: Main Results and Prospects for the Research. B. Gasparyan/M. Arimura (eds.), Stone Age of Armenia: A Guide-book to the Stone Age Archaeology in the Republic of Armenia. Center for Cultural Resource Studies, Kanazawa University, 161–176.

Badalyan, R./Harutyunyan, A. A./Chataigner, C./Le Mort, F./Chabot, J./Brochier, J. E./Balasescu, A./Radu, V./Hovsepyan, R., 2010. The Settlement of Aknashen-Khatunarkh, A Neolithic Site in the Ararat Plain (Armenia): Excavation Results 2004–2009. Tüba-ar 13, 185–218.

Chataigner, C., 1995. La Transcaucasie au Néolithique et au Chalcolithique. BAR International Series 624. Oxford.Copeland, L., 1996. The Flint and Obsidian Industries. P. M. M. G. Akkermans (ed.), Tell Sabi Abyad: The

Late Neolithic Settlement. Volume II. Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul. Istanbul, 285–338.

Guliyev, F./Nishiaki, Y., 2012. Excavations at the Neolithic Settlement of Göytepe, the Middle Kura Valley, Azerbaijan, 2008–2009. R. Matthews/J. Curtis (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Vol. 3: Fieldwork and Recent Research. Wiesbaden, 71–84.

Guliyev, F./Nishiaki, Y., 2014. Excavations at the Neolithic Settlement of Göytepe, West Azerbaijan, 2010–2011. P. Bieliński et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Vol. 2: Excavation and Progress Reports, Posters. Wiesbaden, 3–16.

Hayrapetyan, A./Martirosyan-Olshansky, K./Areshian, G. E./Avetisyan, P., 2014. Preliminary Results of the 2012 Excavations at the Late Neolithic Settlement of Masis Blur. B. Gasparyan/M. Arimura (eds.), Stone Age of Armenia: A Guide-book to the Stone Age Archaeology in the Republic of Armenia. Center for Cultural Resource Studies, Kanazawa University, 177–190.

Kadowaki, S./Maher, L./Portillo, M./Albert, R. M./Akashi, C./Guliyev, F./Nishiaki, Y., 2015. Geoarchaeological and Palaeobotanical Evidence for Prehistoric Cereal Storage in the Southern Caucasus: the Neolithic Settlement of Göytepe (Mid 8th Millennium BP). Journal of Archaeological Science 53, 408–425.

Korobkova, G. F., 1996. The Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Southern Caucasus. S. K. Kozlowski/H. G. K. Gebel (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, and Their Contemporaries in Adjacent Regions. Berlin, 57–89.


Lyonnet, B./Guliyev, F./Helwing, B./Aliyev, T./Hansen, S./Mirtskhulava, G., 2012. Ancient Kura 2010–2011: The First Two Seasons of Joint Field Work in the Southern Caucasus. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 44, 1–190.

Meshveliani, T., 2013. On Neolithic Origins in Western Georgia. Archaeology, Ethnology, and Anthropology of Eurasia 41.2, 61–72.

Meshveliani, T./Bar-Oz, G./Bar-Yosef, O./Belfer-Cohen, A./Boaretto, E./Jakeli, N./Koridze, I./Matskevich, Z., 2007. Mesolithic Hunters at Kotias Klde, Western Georgia: Preliminary Results. Paléorient 33.2, 47–58.

Narimanov, I. G., 1992. The Earliest Agricultural Settlements in the Territory of Azerbaidzhan. Soviet Anthropology and Archeology 30.4, 9–66.

Nishiaki, Y., 1993. Anatolian Obsidian and the Neolithic Obsidian Industries of North Syria: A Preliminary Review. H.I.H. Prince T. Mikasa (ed.), Essays on Anatolian Archaeology. Wiesbaden, 120–140.

Nishiaki, Y./Guliyev, F./Kadowaki, S., 2015a. Chronological Contexts of the Earliest Pottery Neolithic in the Southern Caucasus: Radiocarbon Dates for Göytepe and Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, West Azerbaijan. American Journal of Archaeology 119.3, 279–294.

Nishiaki, Y./Guliyev, F./Kadowaki, S./Alakbarov, V./Miki, T./Salimbayov, S./Akashi, C./Arai, S., 2015b. Investigating Cultural and Socioeconomic Change at the Beginning of the Pottery Neolithic in the Southern Caucasis: The 2013 Excavations at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, Azerbaijan. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 374 (i. p.).

Nishiaki, Y./Guliyev, F./Kadowaki, S./Arimatsu, Y./Hayakawa, Y./Shimogama, K./Miki, T./Akashi, C./Arai, S./Salimbeyov, S., 2013. Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe: Excavations of the Earliest Pottery Neolithic Occupations on the Middle Kura, Azerbaijan, 2012. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 45 (i. p.).

Petrosyan, A./Arimura M./Gasparyan, B./Nahapetyan, S./Chataigner, C., 2014. Early Holocene Sites of the Republic of Armenia: Questions of Cultural Distribution and Chronology. B. Gasparyan/M. Arimura (eds.), Stone Age of Armenia: A Guide-book to the Stone Age Archaeology in the Republic of Armenia. Center for Cultural Resource Studies, Kanazawa University, 135–159.

Seiji Kadowaki, Nagoya University Museum, Nagoya University, Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, 464-8601, Japan.Farhad Guliyev, Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, The Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the National Academy of Sciences, Baku, Azerbaijan.Yoshihiro Nishiaki, The University Museum, The University of Tokyo, Hongo 7-3-1, Bunkyo, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan.

Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East

Volume 3

ICAANE 9, Vol 3 neu.indd 1 11.02.2016 15:51:42

2016

Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden

Proceedings of the 9th International Congress

on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East

9–13 June 2014, Basel

Edited by Rolf A. Stucky, Oskar Kaelin and Hans-Peter Mathys


Proceedings of the 9th International Congress

on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East

Volume 3

Reports Edited by Oskar Kaelin and Hans-Peter Mathys

2016

Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden


Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

For further information about our publishing program consult our website http://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de© Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden 2016This work, including all of its parts, is protected by copyright.Any use beyond the limits of copyright law without the permissionof the publisher is forbidden and subject to penalty. This appliesparticularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storageand processing in electronic systems.Printed on permanent/durable paper.Printing and binding: Memminger MedienCentrum AGPrinted in GermanyISBN 978-3-447-10615-3

Cover illustration: © Gino Caspari, Columbia University.


Proceedings, 9th ICAANE, Basel 2014, Vol. 3

Contents

Iraq 11

Giacomo Benati – Camille LecompteNew Light on the Early Archives from Ur: The «Ancient Room» Tablet Hoard 13

Eloisa CasadeiSouthern Mesopotamian Contexts and a Reevaluation of the Ur III Pottery. Reconsidering a Chronological Periodization 31

Franco D’Agostino – Ali Khadem Ghanim – Licia RomanoAbu Tbeirah. Preliminary Report of the 2012–2013 Campaigns 45

Paul Zimansky – Elizabeth StoneTell Sakhariya and Gaeš 57

Iraq (Kurdistan) 67

Kyra KaercherA Preliminary Assessment of the Ceramic Sequence of Northeastern Iraqi Kurdistan 69

John MacGinnis – Timothy Matney – Kemalettin KöroğluExcavations in the Lower Town of Ziyaret Tepe 2012 and 2013 83

Karel Nováček – Miroslav MelčákThe Medieval Urban Landscape in Northeastern Mesopotamia (MULINEM): First Two Years of the Project 95

Maria Grazia Masetti-Rouault – Olivier RouaultFrench Excavations in Qasr Shemamok, Iraqi Kurdistan (2013 and 2014 campaigns): the Assyrian Town and Beyond 107

Tevfik Emre Şerifoğlu – Jesse Casana – Claudia Glatz – Shwkr Muhammed HaydarInitial Results of the Sirwan (Upper Diyala) Regional Project 119

Tim B. B. Skuldbøl – Carlo ColantoniFirst Results of the Rania Plain Survey. Salvage Operations in the Dokan Dam Inundation Zone 131

Aline Tenu – Christine KepinskiKunara, a Bronze Age City on the Upper Tanjaro (Iraq) 147

6 Contents

Syria 161

Cristina BaccarinConsumption in a Temple? An Interpretation of the Ceramic Repertoire of the Early Bronze Age Temple at Tell Ahmar (North Syria) 163

Anna Gómez BachCharacterizing Red Ware : More than a Single Production at Tell Halula (Syria) at the End of the Halaf Period 177

Guy BunnensA 3rd Millennium Temple at Tell Ahmar (Syria) 187

Marta D’AndreaNew Data from Old Excavations: Preliminary Study of the EB IVB Pottery from Area H at Tell Mardikh/Ebla, Syria 199

Stephanie DöpperThe LBA pottery of Area BU in the Royal Palace of Qatna, Syria 217

Frank HoleHistorical Processes on the Middle Khabur River, Syria, during the Late Ubaid: Intrusion, Attenuation and Divergence 231

Béatrice MullerPanneaux d’incrustation en coquille de Mari, Ville II: implications des matériaux et des techniques 243

Paola PoliSeals and Sealings from Tell Masaikh–Kar-Assurnasirpal. Some New Results 257

Agnese VaccaNew Data on the EB III–IVA1 of North-Western Syria in the light of Old and Recent Excavations at Tell Mardikh/Ebla and Tell Tuqan 269

Turkey 283

Gulan AyazThe Early Iron Age Jewellery from the Karagündüz Necropolis in Eastern Anatolia and Its Relationship to Southern Caucasia 285

Alice Boccia Paterakis – Sachihiro OmuraGold Cloisonné from the Assyrian Colony Period in Central Anatolia 293

Müge BuluAn Intact Palace Kitchen Context from Middle Bronze Age Alalakh: Organization and Function 301

Nilgün CoşkunMiddle and Neo-Assyrian Periods of the Harran Plain in Light of a Survey 315

7Contents

Anacleto D’Agostino – Valentina OrsiResearches at Uşaklı Höyük (Central Turkey): Survey, Surface Scraping and First Digging Operations 333

Sevinç GünelA New Centre of Intercultural Relations in Western Anatolia during the Late Bronze Age: Çine-Tepecik 347

Sara Pizzimenti – Federico ZainaThe Iron Age at Karkemish between Tradition and Innovation. The Case Study of the Pottery Assemblage from Area C 361

Iran 377

Rasoul Seyedin Boroujeni – Saman Hamzavi Zarghani – Mohsen ZeidiDiscovery of Long Term Occupation in the Saimarreh River Valley, Western Iran (Report on the Archaeological Survey) 379

Enzo Cocca – Andrea Genito – Bruno Genito – Giulio MarescaA WebGIS about the Italian Archaeological Activities in Sistan, Iran (60s–70s of the 20th century): Archaeo.Pro.Di.Mu.S. 393

Nicolas Assur CorfùEsotericism at Persepolis – Really? 405

Ata Hasanpur – Zahra HashemiA Comparative Study of the New Sassanid’s Stuccos from Qela Gowri, Ramavand, Lorestan, Iran 417

Najmeh HassasAn Introduction to the Traditional Arch and Vault from the Elamite (1250 BC. M.) to the Qajar period (1925) in Iran 429

Vito Messina – Jafar Mehr KianThe Religious Complex at Shami. Preliminary Report on the Research of the Iranian-Italian Joint Expedition in Khuzestan at Kal-e Chendar 439

Israel – Lebanon – Levant 449

Eva Katarina GlazerSedentary and Nomadic Population during Bronze Age Southern Levant: An Example of Cultural Contacts 451

Aaron GreenerAnalyzing the Late Bronze Age Imported Pottery Distribution in the Southern Levant: Overcoming Methodological Challenges 463

Haskel J. Greenfield – Itzhaq Shai – Aren M. MaeirUnderstanding Early Bronze Age Urban Patterns from the Perspective of Non-Elite Neighbourhood: The Excavations at Tell es-Safi/Gath, Israel 475

8 Contents

Ann E. Killebrew – Jamie QuartermaineTotal Archaeology@Tel Akko (The 2013 and 2014 Seasons): Excavation, Survey, Community Outreach and New Approaches to Landscape Archaeology in 3D 491

Florine MarchandL’industrie lithique de Tell ‘Arqa (Plaine du Akkar, Liban Nord) 503

Jordan 515

Don BoyerAqueducts and Birkets: New Evidence of the Water Management System Servicing Gerasa (Jarash), Jordan 517

Marta D’AndreaPottery Production at Khirbat Iskandar, Jordan. Preliminary Results of the Technological Study of EB IV Pottery from the Site 533

Sumio FujiiSlab-lined Feline Representations: New Finding at ‘Awja 1, a Late Neolithic Open-air Sanctuary in Southernmost Jordan 549

Lucas PetitTell Damiyah. A Small Settlement Mound with a Remarkable International Role 561

Andrea Polcaro – Juan Muñiz – Valentín Alvarez The New Spanish-Italian Expedition to the EB I site of Jebel al-Mutawwaq, Middle Wadi az-Zarqa, Jordan: Preliminary Results of the 2012–2013 Campaigns 571

Suzanne RichardRecent Excavations at Khirbat Iskandar, Jordan. The EB III/IV Fortifications. 585

Uzbekistan – Turkmenistan – Afghanistan 599

Joaquín María Córdoba – Muhammed MamedovL’âge du fer au Dehistan. Nouvelles recherches archéologiques turkmènes et espagnoles sur les sites de Geoktchik Depe et Izat Kuli (Province de Balkan, Turkménistan) 601

Fabiana RaianoPottery from the joint Uzbek-Italian Archaeological Mission at Kojtepa (Samarkand Area – Uzbekistan) 615

Victor Sarianidi – Nadezhda DubovaTypes of Graves at Gonur Depe Bronze Age Site in Turkmenistan 631

Liliya Sataeva – Robert SataevWood Using at the Bronze Age Site Gonur-Depe (Ancient Margiana, South Turkmenistan) 643

Judith ThomalskyAfghanistan: Ancient Mining and Metallurgy: Initial Project Stage 647

9Contents

Oman 663

Michele Degli EspostiExcavations at the Early Bronze Age Site «ST1» near Bisya (Sultanate of Oman): Notes on the Architecture and Material Culture 665

Stephanie DöpperExpressions of Collective Memory – The Reuse of EBA Tombs in the Necropolis of Bāt, Sultanate of Oman 679

Conrad SchmidtMobile Pastoralists as Global Players: Excavations at Al-Zebah, Sultanate of Oman 689

Azerbaijan – Georgia – Caucasus-Region 697

Jeyhun Eminli – Emil IskenderovArchaeological Investigations at Piboz Tapa Necropolis. Lerik, Southern Azerbaijan (Preliminary Report 2012–2013) 699

Seiji Kadowaki – Farhad Guliyev – Yoshihiro NishiakiChipped Stone Technology of the Earliest Agricultural Village in the Southern Caucasus: Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe (the Beginning of the 6th Millennium BC) 709

René KunzeInterdisciplinary Studies on the Small Finds from the Late Bronze/Early Iron Age Settlements of Udabno I–III (Eastern Georgia) 723

General Topics 735

Silvia Alaura – Davide NadaliResearching the Archives: A Shared Past for the Future. The GRISSO Project 737

Gino CaspariEin Inventar der Hügelgräber im Altaigebirge. Kulturgüterschutz durch Fernerkundung 741

Fabrice De BackerLa construction d’un char de guerre néo-assyrien 751

Rita GautschyAstronomical Data and their Potential for Chronological Purposes 763

Krzysztof HippŠamšī-Adad V’s Campaigns into the Zagros Revisited 769

Chamsia Sadozaï – David GandreauConserver après la fouille: la question des structures en terre crue à partir d’exemples en Asie centrale 781

View publication statsView publication stats

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303006906

Kadowaki Guliyev Nishiaki 2016 ICAANE Basel Vol 39ICAANE Basel Front Matter Vol 3

Documents

Chipped Stone Technology of the Earliest Agricultural Village in … · Obsidian was most likely imported from sources in the southern Caucasus, and its geochem - ical analyses are