FARHAD GULIYEV, YOSHIHIRO NISHIAKI EXCAVATIONS AT THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF GOYTEPE, WEST...

Proceedings of the 8th International Congresson the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East

Volume 2

00_ICAANE VOL 2:ICAANE 2012 3/19/14 1:27 AM

Proceedingsof the 8th International Congress

on the Archaeologyof the Ancient Near East

30 April – 4 May 2012,University of Warsaw

Volume 2Excavation and Progress Reports

Posters

Edited byPiotr Bieliński, Michał Gawlikowski,

Rafał Koliński, Dorota Ławecka, Arkadiusz Sołtysiakand Zuzanna Wygnańska

2014Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden


Cover illustration: Impression of a third millennium BC cylinder seal fromTell Arbid in Syria combined with the depiction of a mermaid – a motif fromWarsaw’s coat of arms. Designed by Łukasz Rutkowski.

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen NationalbibliothekDie Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der DeutschenNationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografi sche Daten sind im Internetüber http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche NationalbibliothekThe Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the DeutscheNationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the internet

at http://dnb.dnb.de.

For further information about our publishing program consult ourwebsite http://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de

© Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden 2014This 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 Germany

ISBN 978-3-447-10174-5


CONTENTS

FOREWORD OF THE EDITORS .......................................................................................XIPROGRAMME OF THE CONGRESS ...............................................................................XIII

VOLUME II

EXCAVATION REPORTS AND SUMARIES

FARHAD GULIYEV, YOSHIHIRO NISHIAKI

Excavations at the Neolithic Settlement of Göytepe, West Azerbaijan, 2010-2011 .........................................................................3

SANDRA HEINSCH, WALTER KUNTNER, VAKHTANG LICHELI

Some Remarks on the First Two Georgian-Austrian Excavation Campaigns at Khovle Gora, Shida Kartli, 2011-2012 ................................17

MICHELE CASANOVA, CHRISTINE LORRE, MATHIAS HAZE

The Necropolises of Azerbaijan during the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Lenkoran and the Lerik Areas (NABIALLA): A New French-Azerbaijanese Archaeological Joint Project .......................33

KATIA GAVAGNIN, JULIETTE MAS

Early Jezirah 3b Pottery from Tell Beydar, Syria. Selected Inventories from the Latest Seasons of Excavation ...........49

STEPHANIE DÖPPER

On the Reuse of Early Bronze Age Tombs – the German Excavations at Bāt and Al-Ayn, Sultanate of Oman ............73

MATHILDE GELIN

New French-Kuwaiti Research in the Helenistic Fortress of Faïlaka-Ikaros .........................................................................................87

SÉBASTIEN REY

The Fortifications of Mari: Preliminary Results of the 2006-2010 Excavations in the East City .....................................................................101

PHILIPPE QUENET, AHMAD SULTAN

New Research in the Area of Malhat ed-Deru, Northeast Syria (Autumn 2010) ..........................................................................................117

OLIVIER ROUAULT, MARIA GRAZIA MASETTI-ROUAULT

Recent Research in the Erbil Region: 2011 Excavations in Qasr Shemamok – Kilizu (Kurdistan, Iraq) ..........................................133


CHRISTINE KEPINSKI

Research in the Suleymaniyah Province (Iraq): The Upper Tanjaro Survey ........................................................................149

KONSTANTINOS KOPANIAS, CLAUDIA BEUGER, SHERRY C. FOX

Preliminary Results from the Excavation at Tell Nader in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq ................................................................165

FRANCO D'AGOSTINO, LICIA ROMANO, ALI KADHEM

Excavation at Abu Tbeirah, Southern Iraq ...............................................189BARBARA CHITI, TATIANA PEDRAZZI

Tell Kazel (Syria), Area II. New Evidence from a Late Bronze/Iron Age Quarter ...............................................................205

GIOACCHINO FALSONE, PAOLA SCONZO

Tell Shiyukh Tahatani – New Light on the Bronze Age Sequence ...........223BARBARA HELWING, TEVEKKÜL ALIYEV

A Monumental Neolithic? New Results of the Ongoing Azerbaijanian-German Investigations in the Mil Steppe, Azerbaijan ......247

GARY O. ROLLEFSON, YORKE M. ROWAN, MEGAN PERRY

A Permanent Late Neolithic Residential Structure in the Eastern Desert of Jordan .................................................................259

RÉGIS VALLET

Tell Feres 2010: Recent Discoveries on the Ubaid and Late Chalcolithic in North Syria ........................................................271

UWE SIEVERTSEN

New Finds of Iron Age Pottery from Tell Halaf (2008-2010) ..................289MAHNAZ SHARIFI

The Archaeologival Excavations of Khest Dasht Tepe Damghan, Northeast of Iran .......................................................................................309

ALVISE MATESSI, MARCO CAPARDONI, ANNA LANARO

Excavations at Kınık Höyük: A Preliminary Report on the First Season (Aug. – Oct. 2011) .................321

NICOLA LANERI

Hirbemerdon Tepe 2003-2011: The Chronological Sequence ..................341JOHN MACGINNIS, TIMOTHY MATNEY, KEMALETTIN KÖROĞLU, KRISTINA SAUER, JUDITH DOSCH

Operations in the Lower Town of Ziyaret Tepe, 2010 and 2011 ..............353 HOLLY PITTMAN

Chogah Maran in the Central Zagros: The Glyptic Art of the Early Bronze ...................................................................................367

GIOVANNI BOSCHIAN, ELENA ROVA

Geoarchaeology and Soil Micromorphology of Early Bronze Age Anthropic Features from Natsargora Settlement (Southern Caucasus, Georgia). Preliminary Data from the Georgian-Italian Shida Kartli Archaeological Project .............................................................................383

VI Contents

00_ICAANE VOL 2:ICAANE 2012 3/19/14 1:27 AM Page VI

ELENA ROVA, ZURAB MAKHARADZE, MARINA PUTURIDZE

New Research on the 3rd Millennium BC Cultures of the Southern Caucasus: The 2010 and 2011 Field Campaigns of the Georgian-Italian Shida Kartli Archaeological Project ....................401

AZARMIDOKHT ESFANDIARI

Results of Excavations in the Ancient Cemetery of Gharbalbiz in Yazd Province and a Description of Bronze Age Objects from the Cemetery ....................................................................................417

LORENZ RAHMSTORF

Early Balance Weights in Mesopotamia and Western Syria: Origin and Context ...................................................................................427

BÉATRICE MULLER

'Architectural Models' of the Near-East and Eastern Mediterranean: a Global Approach Introduction (Neolithic – 1st Millenium BC) .............443

ABBAS REZAEI NIA

The Preliminary Report on Soundings in the Site of Qaleh Gabri in Sarpol-e Zahab ......................................................................................471

SUSANNE KERNER

The Desert and the Sown Project in Northern Jordan ..............................489VICTOR SARIANIDI , NADEZHDA DUBOVA

Gonur Excavations in 2000-2010 .............................................................503MARCIN WAGNER

Yaz II Period on Topaz Gala Depe, Southern Turkmenistan ....................519 ELISE LUNEAU, JULIO BENDEZU-SARMIENTO, SAMARIDDIN MUSTAFAKULOV

Ceramics and Chronology at Dzharkutan: a Revision of the Periodization of the Sapalli Culture (Uzbekistan, c. 2100-1500 BC) ................................................................529

DANIEL VARGA, YIGAL ISRAEL, IANIR MILEVSKI

A Multi-Period Site at Amaziya near Lachish ..........................................543ANN E. KILLEBREW, BRANDON R. OLSON

The Tel Akko Total Archaeology Project: New Frontiers in the Excavation and 3D Documentation of the Past ......559

LILLY GERSHUNY

Excavations at Tel Bahan – An MB II Village/Trade Center in the Sharon Plain ....................................................................................575

AVRAHAM FAUST

The History of Tel 'Eton Following the Results of the First Seven Seasons of Excavations (2006-2012) ..........................585

Contents VII

00_ICAANE VOL 2:ICAANE 2012 3/19/14 1:27 AM Page VII

POSTER SESSION

CORRADO ALVARO, GIULIO PALUMBI

New “Pastoral Landscapes” of the Early Third Millennium BC in theMalatya Plain. The Case of Gelinciktepe .................................................607

ANNA ANGUISSOLA, LEONARDO BOCHICCHIO, ANTONIO CALABRÒ, SILVANA COSTA

Research in the South-Western Necropolis at Hierapolis in Phrygia: The Tomb of the Dragons (S2) .................................................................619

LAURA BATTINI

The Seal Collection of the Musée des Confluences of Lyon ....................631SONJA BEHRENDT, DIRK PAUL MIELKE

Archaeometric Investigation of Phoenician Pottery from the Iberian Peninsula ...................................................................................................635

SILVIA BERNARDONI, RAFFAELE TROJANIS

Optical vs Electronical Tools in Near Eastern Archaeology: The Accuracy of the 1920 Map of Karkemish by P. L.O . Guy Checked with a Total Station and GPS Survey ........................................645

MARIA BOFILL, MARTA PORTILLO, MIQUEL MOLIST, ROSA M. ALBERT

Processing Activities during the Levantine Neolithic and Early Bronze Ages Using Phytolith and Use-Wear Analyses of Grinding Stone Tools ...........................................................657

ARWA KHAROBI, PATRICE COURTAUD, HENRI DUDAY

The Place of Children in the Ancient Society of Urkesh (Tell Mozan,Northeastern Syria) in the Middle Bronze Age (2000-1600 BC): An Archeothanatological Approach ..........................................................667

GIOVANNA LIBEROTTI, CORRADO ALVARO

Comparative Analysis of Building Materials at Arslantepe (Malatya,Turkey). Level VII and VI A ....................................................................677

JULIETTE MAS

Terqa Ceramic Culture during the 3rd Millennium BC. Material from 18th-26th Excavation Campaigns ........................................689

ANGELO DI MICHELE

Iron Age II Terrace J at Tell Afis (Syria) ..................................................703IANIR MILEVSKI, ELIOT BRAUN, DANIEL VARGA, YIGAL ISRAEL

The Early Bronze Age Settlement and Large-Scale Silo Complex of Amaziya, Israel .....................................................................713

CRISTINA MONDIN

Seljuk Potteries at Kemerhisar (South Cappadocia, Turkey) ...................723KAREL NOVÁČEK

Arbil, Iraqi Kurdistan: The „Longue Durée“ of the City According to New Data ..............................................................................................733

VIII Contents

00_ICAANE VOL 2:ICAANE 2012 3/19/14 1:27 AM Page VIII

MAHTA SHEIKHI

Study of Mythical Creatures of Ziwiye Ivory Plaques in Sanandaj Museum and National Museum of Iran ................................743

AGNIESZKA SZYMCZAK

Khabur Ware Period Objects of Unbaked Clay from Tell Arbid: a Short Note on the Second Set of Finds ..................................................757

FÜSUN TÜLEK, BIRGÜL ÖĞÜT

Prehistoric Pottery of Osmaniye Province in East Cilicia: A Holistic Approach .................................................................................765

JACOPO TURCHETTO

The Via Tauri and the Ancient Road Network of Southern Cappadocia (Turkey). A Preliminary Note Regarding the Topography of a Frontier Territory .....................................................775

KAROL ZAJDOWSKI

Transformation of the Mesopotamian Banquet Scene into the Presentation Scene in the Early Dynastic, Akkadian and Ur III Periods .....................................................................................785

Contents IX

00_ICAANE VOL 2:ICAANE 2012 3/19/14 1:27 AM Page IX

EXCAVATIONS AT THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF GÖYTEPE,

WEST AZERBAIJAN, 2010-2011

FARHAD GULIYEV, YOSHIHIRO NISHIAKI

ABSTRACT

The archaeological investigations at Göytepe, a large Neolithic mound of theShomutepe culture in west Azerbaijan, have been in progress since 2008. This paperreports preliminary results of the recent two seasons of excavations, 2010 -2011, whichresulted in contributing to our better understanding of the early farming community inthe region. First, the extensive excavations yielded important new data on the settle-ment organization. They suggest that a circular building complex, consisting of five tosix structures, functioned as a minimum unit for daily activities, and several complexesconnected with each other constituted the overall settlement. The consistent patternover the levels suggests a strong social tie maintained among the communities. Second,the establishment of a long stratigraphy belonging to the early-middle 6th millenniumcal. BC is also a major achievement. It is divided into at least 12 occupation levels,which provide us with the first opportunity to investigate the chronological develop-ment of the Shomutepe culture. While the subsistence economy seems to have beenrather unchanged from the beginning of the occupation, diachronic changes in toolmanufacturing suggest that the Göytepe sequence represents a part of the formationprocesses of the Shomutepe culture.

INTRODUCTION

Göytepe is a large Neolithic mound in the Middle Kura Valley, west Azerbaijan, datedfrom the early-middle 6th millennium BC (Fig. 1). The archaeological investigations inprogress at this mound aim to contribute to clarifying the origin and development offood-producing society in the Southern Caucasus. Although such issues have been amajor focus of archaeological research for decades in the region, much as in the NearEast, knowledge about the timing and the processes of transition from a hunter-gatherer to agricultural society is still limited in comparison with the extensive accu-mulation of knowledge on the Near East. Nevertheless, the archaeological literature,mainly based on evidence from fieldwork conducted in the 1950s to 1970s, has amplyindicated the primary importance of the Middle Kura region to understanding the socio-economic transformations at the dawn of early farming, that is, the Neolithizationprocesses, in the Southern Caucasus (e.g. Munchaev 1982; Kiguradze 1986; Narimanov1987; Chataigner 1995).

04_ICAANE 2012 II Excav 01_19:ICAANE 2012 3/19/14 1:29 AM Page 3

Investigation of Göytepe was launched in 2008 as a joint Azerbaijani-Japaneseproject (Guliyev et al. 2009). The archaeological entity represented at Göytepe is theShomutepe or Shomu-Shulaveri culture of the Pottery Neolithic, which is one of theoldest Neolithic entities known in Azerbaijan to date (Narimanov 1987). In view of thefact that this cultural entity was defined when modern excavation techniques such asstratigraphic sampling and radiocarbon dating were not fully available, two main goalswere set in the initial stage of our investigations. The first was to determine the ar-chaeological records of the Shomutepe occupations at Göytepe in as much detail aspossible, and the second was to define their precise chronological position. Preliminaryresults of the first two seasons’ excavations have been outlined elsewhere (Guliyevand Nishiaki 2012a; Guliyev et al. 2009, 2010). In this paper, a summary of the exca-vation results of the following two seasons (2010-2011) is presented.

THE SITE AND THE EXCAVATIONS OF 2010 -2011

The Neolithic site of Göytepe is situated approximately 10 km east of Tovuz, the mid-dle reaches of the Kura Valley (Fig. 1). Located at the western edge of the delta of theZayam River, one of the tributaries to the Kura River, the site constitutes a roundmound with a diameter of 145 m and a height of 8 m. The surrounding region is knownas the Qazakh-Ganja plain, a region once intensively investigated in the 1950s and1960s by Ideal Narimanov (1987), who documented a number of early Neolithic sites.One of the most important of these is Shomutepe, excavated by Narimanov and nowdesignated as the eponymous site of the Shomutepe culture. Göytepe was also recog-nized by Narimanov (1987: 31) as a comparably old Neolithic mound but was not sub-jected to excavations. The first excavations started in 2008, with our mission (Guliyevet al. 2009).

The excavations have been conducted using two major strategies: large- and small-scale excavations. Large-scale excavations are intended to reveal the settlement layout.The area for this purpose is located in the highest part of the mound to the north. Four10 m by 10 m squares (1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B) were exposed in the first two seasons, 2008and 2009, and then six more (99A, 99B, 3A, 3B, 4A, and 4B) in 2010 and 2011 (Fig.2). When architecture was discovered in these squares, it was carefully investigated andrecorded, and then preserved as it was for subsequent uses such as reexamination andexhibition (Guliyev and Nishiaki 2012b). Deeper excavations were carried out only inthe area without architecture. When the empty space became too small for further dig-ging, the excavation of the square was suspended. In this way, the Neolithic settlementlayout of different levels has been revealed in a large area of 20 m by 50 m (Fig. 3).

The small-scale excavations are for the purpose of deep sounding in limited areasto reveal the succession of earlier settlements. The sounding was started in Square 4BII(the eastern half of 4B). This area, at the northern edge of the mound, was chosen be-cause much of its younger levels had been heavily disturbed by modern activities,

4 Farhad Guliyev, Yoshihiro Nishiaki


which gave us the advantage that the earlier deposits would have been easily exposed(Guliyev and Nishiaki 2012a). In 2010 and 2011, the sounding of 4BII was enlargedto cover the entire area of Square 4B. A series of smaller sounding pits was also openedat different parts of the periphery of the mound. The aim was to define the extensionof the Neolithic settlement. Nine pits of 2 m by 2 m were excavated in 2011 at thenorth, south, east, and west edges (Fig. 2).

THE STRATIGRAPHY, ARCHITECTURE, AND SETTLEMENT

A combination of these two methods of excavation produced the following observa-tions on the stratigraphy, architecture, and settlement organization of Göytepe.

Until the 2009 season, the excavations of the higher part (1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B) andthe lower part (4B) of the mound were separate from each other. However, the open-ing of the new squares of 3A and 3B in 2010 and 2011 made it possible to connect thestratigraphy and architectural plan of the two areas. A continuous stratigraphy con-sisting of at least 12 building levels has been thus defined, although the deep sound-ing in 4B has not yet reached virgin soil (Fig. 4). The 16 radiocarbon dates for theselevels show a relatively narrow range, bracketed in a short period of the early-middle6th millennium BC, between 5650 and 5300 cal. BC (Guliyev and Nishiaki 2012b).Accordingly, one building level seems to represent 20 to 30 years on average, corre-sponding to roughly one generation. The well-stratified occupational sequence withplenty of reliable radiocarbon dates is the first to have become available for anyShomutepe culture site in Azerbaijan and serves as the first solid basis on which com-parison of the Neolithic finds from the Qazakh-Ganja plain are made with those fromother parts of the Southern Caucasus.

The large-scale excavations also revealed detailed features of the architecture. Fig. 3shows the distribution of the recovered structures except those in Squares 99A and99B, where Bronze Age tombs have significantly disturbed the underlying Neolithicdeposits. As expected for the architecture of the Shomutepe culture in general (Narimanov1987; Azimov 2006; Hansen et al. 2006; 2007), the buildings are principally circularin plan. Their preservation is extremely good: some walls are still standing up to 1.5m high (Fig. 5). The walls are made of plano-convex mud bricks with straw temper,either in a yellow or grey color. The size of the bricks varies between 30 and 50 cm inlength, although width and thickness are generally consistent at about 15-18 and 10 cm,respectively. Most of the circular buildings are rather small. Their diameter is mostlybetween 1.5 and 2 m, but there are a couple of buildings with a larger diameter of upto 3 m (Fig. 3). This dichotomy in size confirms the remarks made by Narimanov(1987) during his excavations of Shomutepe. Each of the buildings has one small en-trance, approximately 60 cm wide (Fig. 5). Some of the buildings have a post-hole inthe center of the floor (Fig. 6). The circular structures of the Shomutepe culture havebeen often interpreted as having domed roofs made of mud bricks, similar to those of

Excavations at the Neolithic Settlement of Göytepe 5


the Halaf culture in Upper Mesopotamia. This possibility cannot be entirely ruled out,but the discovery of post-holes demonstrates the existence of buildings with a thatchedroof supported by a central post as well (cf. Munchaev 1982: 141). As a matter of fact,the relatively thin walls made of only one course of narrow mud bricks for all the struc-tures of the Shomutepe culture would not have been robust enough to support a domedroof made of mud bricks as in the Halafian period. Halafian architecture had muchthicker walls, often with a stone foundation at the base (e.g. Mallowan and Rose 1935),features that are never seen in Shomutepe architecture.

Circular buildings were recovered from every part of the entire excavation area.They seem to constitute a non-organized settlement clustered with numerous build-ings (Fig. 3), but as noted in the previous report (Guliyev and Nishiaki 2012a), a care-ful examination indicates that the settlement in each level was well organized. It isbuilt up with several oval units of circular buildings: five to six circular buildings areconnected with curved walls, comprising one oval unit that encompasses an open-aircourtyard inside. The best example is the unit in Square 2A (Level 4), which consistsof five circular buildings (Fig. 3). The entrance of each building always faces the court-yard. Domestic features, such as bins and ovens, and daily utensils, such as groundstone tools and pottery vessels, were usually discovered in the courtyard. These find-ings emphasize the importance of the courtyard for domestic activities for the com-munity inhabiting the oval unit.

What the 2010-2011 excavations added to the above is that such an oval unit wasoften connected with other units by further sidewalls. The unit in Square 2A, for exam-ple, was found to have been connected to the unit in 3A and another in 1A. Importantly,these three units belong to different occupation levels (Fig. 3). The unit in 2A is assignedto Level 4, whereas those in 3A and 1A are assigned to Level 5 and Level 3, respectively.This fact indicates that a new building was built while the previous ones were still inuse. A remarkable occupational continuity at this mound is evident. Moreover, it sug-gests strong social ties maintained by the inhabitants of these units over generations.

The soundings at the periphery of the mound also yielded important results. Thosein 7B and 5B defined the northern limit of the distribution of the primary Neolithic cul-tural remains (Fig. 2). These pits contained Neolithic materials derived from slope ero-sion only. The intact occupation levels were confined to the south of 5B. Similarly, pit1GG, also full of washed-out materials, showed a limit of the western extension of thesettlement, and the soundings at the eastern edge delineated the boundary of the set-tlement between pits 97F and 97G. On the other hand, the excavation pits at the southedge (93A1, 93A2, and 94A,) were full of intact Neolithic occupation levels, in whicheven standing mud-brick structures were preserved pretty well. Therefore, the Neolithicsettlement was obviously distributed further to the south. Unfortunately, however, excavations to the south have been suspended due to the presence of a modern cropfield.

Another result to be referred to from the soundings is a unique architectural elementdiscovered in pit 96F. This is a massive mud-brick wall, running along the eastern edge



of the mound (Fig. 7). As preserved, the wall stands approximately one meter high,with a thickness of about one meter at the base. At least seven layers of mud bricks,laid in different axes by layer, have been identified on the foundation layer made withriver gravel, about 20 cm thick. The function of this wall is as yet unknown. It may haveserved as protection against water threatening to flood in from the eastern plain, wherean ancient river may have been flowing (Yuichi Hayakawa, personal communication).It may also have been a part of some larger public construction (cf.. Helwing 2012).Whatever the case, the Neolithic settlement of Göytepe consisted not only of domes-tic structures but also of a different type of architecture, at least at the periphery.

MATERIAL REMAINS

All of the Neolithic levels yielded pottery. The characteristics of the pottery, assigna-ble to the Shomutepe culture, are principally the same as those discovered in the 2009-2010 seasons. That is, the vessel shapes are dominated by jars with vertical or incurvedwalls, and the flat base is often with mat impression. The rarity of decorated pottery isalso confirmed: relief-like oblong, wavy, or circular applied knobs when present. In ad-dition, the deep sounding in Square 4B confirmed a chronological trend already sug-gested in the first seasons (Guliyev and Nishiaki 2012a), namely, a sharp decrease inthe quantity of pottery in lower levels. At the same time, the proportion of plant-temperedpottery dropped, while mineral-tempered pottery were more common in the earlier as-semblages.

The lithic assemblages are also comparable to those from the previous seasons.They contain a large number of obsidian blade tools. The blade production was carriedout using both pressure and indirect techniques. One of their major uses was probablyas sickle elements, hafted to bone or wood handles in a jagged way (see. Narimanov1987: 205). Sickle elements were also manufactured on flint blades and flakes. Anothertool type worth mentioning is the trapeze-arrowhead, all examples of which were madeof obsidian. They include a few examples made by bi-lateral flat pressure retouch (Fig.8). This particular type of arrowhead, also known from Archulo, Georgia (Hansen etal. 2007), is almost identical to that of the Late Neolithic of north Syria, for instance,that of Sabi Abyad II (Copeland 1996). It suggests a definite link between the lithicmanufacturing tradition and a remote region in Upper Mesopotamia.

Other finds are also similar to those of other Shomutepe settlements, but the vari-ety identified is certainly wider. Abundant bone tools were recovered. The most com-mon type is a short point or awl, followed by spatulas, hoes, dibbles, and hammers.Less common but characteristic bone tools include the so-called counters, blades dec-orated with incisions, incised bone blades, arrowheads, palettes, and spatulas with ahole at one end, constituting an assemblage quite popular in the Southern Caucasus(e.g. Badalyan et al. 2007). The assemblage of clay objects now accommodates a cou-ple of female figurines. They are shaped into a stylized form, with dotted decoration



(Fig. 9). Almost precise parallels have been found at Gargalartepe (Narimanov 1987)and Archulo (Hansen and Mirtskulava 2012). Many ground stone tools, including pol-ished axes and sling missiles, also constitute important tool categories.

With the aid of water sieving of sediments, a large amount of plant remains was col-lected. Preliminary analysis points to the common occurrence of cultivated crops atall levels. Plant cultivation evidently comprised a major subsistence economy fromthe deepest level thus far excavated. Naked barley is most common, followed by free-threshing wheat. Hulled wheat and lentils are also present but rare. Evidence for stock-breeding is also present at Göytepe. More than 80% of the recovered animal bones arefrom sheep, goat, cattle, and pigs. The proportion of these animals does not change bylevel. In other words, stockbreeding was already a major economic strategy for animaluse from the early stage of the occupation, much like plant domestication.

CONCLUSIONS

The primary objectives of our investigations are to document the Shomutepe culturalrecords in detail through stratigraphic excavations with a modern standard, and to in-vestigate their chronological developments. As shown in the above, the 2010-2011seasons have largely accomplished these goals. First, the extensive excavations yieldedimportant new data on the settlement organization of the Shomutepe community atGöytepe. They suggest that a circular building complex, consisting of five to six struc-tures, functioned as a minimum unit for daily activities, and several complexes con-nected with each other constituted the overall settlement. The consistent pattern overthe levels suggests a strong social tie maintained among the communities. Second, theestablishment of a long stratigraphy belonging to the early-middle 6th millennium cal.BC is a major achievement of the present excavations. It is divided into at least 12 oc-cupation levels, which provide us with the first opportunity to investigate the chrono-logical development of the Shomutepe culture. The Shomutepe culture is consideredto feature all the standard elements of a Neolithic society, such as plant cultivation andstockbreeding as well as early pottery (Narimanov 1987). Even so, it has remained un-clear whether these elements appeared in the Southern Caucasus as a complete pack-age or one by one. In this respect, the Göytepe sequence would make an importantcontribution. The sequence evidently shows diachronic cultural changes, notably inpottery production techniques. While the subsistence economy was rather unchanged,such changes in tool manufacturing indicate that the Göytepe sequence represents apart of the formation processes of the Shomutepe culture.

This report principally accounts for major results from the fieldwork. The materialremains collected in these seasons are currently undergoing careful laboratory study.The results will be combined with the field data to contribute eventually to elucidat-ing the particular Neolithization processes that took place during the Pottery Neolithicin the Southern Caucasus.



Bibliography

Azimov, M. S. 2006 Architectural Development in the Earliest Settled Agricultural Phases of Azer-

baijan (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1467), Oxford.Badalyan, R., Lombard, P., Avetisyan, P., Chataigner, C., Chabot, J., Vila, E.,Hovsepyan, R., Willcox, G., and Pessin, H. 2007 New data on the Late Prehistory of the southern Caucasus. The excavations

at Aratashen (Armenia): Preliminary report: in B. Lyonnet (ed.), Les Cul-tures du Caucase (VIe-IIIe millénaires avant notre ère): Leurs relations avecle Proche-Orient, Paris, pp. 37 -61.

Chataigner, C. 1995 La Transcaucasie au Néolithique et au Chalcolithique (British Archaeological

Reports, International Series 624), Oxford.Copeland, L.1996 The flint and obsidian industries: in P. M. M. G. Akkermans (ed.), Tell Sabi

Abyad: the Late Neolithic settlement. Report on the excavations of the University of Amsterdam (1988) and the National Museum of AntiquitiesLeiden (1991-1993) in Syria, Istanbul, pp. 285-339.

Guliyev, F., Husejnov, F., Almamedov, H. and Hacizade, N.2009 Göytəpə Neolit dövrü yaşayış məskənində aparılan arxeoloji qazıntılar: in

Azərbaijanda Arxeoloji Tədqiqatlar 2008, pp. 17-20.Guliyev, F., Nishiaki, Y., Huseinov, F., Kadowaki, S., Tanno, K., Hayakawa, Y., Hacizade, N., Babayeva, T., Kume, S., Shimogama, K., Arimatsu, Y. and Akashi, C.2010 Göytəpə Neolit yaşayış yerındə arxeoloji qazıntılar (Tovus rayonu): in

Azərbaijanda Arxeoloji Tədqiqatlar 2009, pp. 45-54.Guliyev, F. and Nishiaki, Y.2012a Excavations at the Neolithic settlement of Göytepe, the middle Kura Valley,

Azerbaijan, 2008-2009: in R. Matthews and J. Curtis (eds), Proceedings ofthe 7th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East,Vol. 3: Fieldwork and recent research, Wiesbaden, pp. 71-84.

2012b The Origin of Civilization – The Early Village of Goytepe, West Azerbaijan,Baku.

Hansen, S. and Mirtskhulava, G.2012 The Neolithic settlement of Aruchlo: Report on the excavations in 2009-2011

(in B. Lyonnet, F. Guliyev, B. Helwing, T. Aliyev, S. Hansen and G. Mirtskhulava,Ancient Kura 2010-2011: the first two seasons of joint field work in thesouthern Caucasus): in Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 44,pp. 58-86.



Hansen, S., G. Mirtskhulava, K. Bastert-Lamprichs, N. Benecke, I. Gatsov, andP. Nedelcheva.2006 Aruchlo 2005-2006: bericht über die Ausgrabungen in einem neolithischen

Siedlungshügel: in Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 38, pp. 1-34.

Hansen, S., Mirtskhulava, G., Bastert-Lamprichs, K., Görsdorf, J., Neumann, D.,

Ullrich, M., Gatsov, I., and Nedelcheva, P.

2007 Aruchlo 2007: bericht über die Ausgrabungen in einem neolithischen Sied-lungshügel: in Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 39, pp. 1-30.

Kiguradze, T.1986 Neolithische Siedlungen von Kvemo-Kartli, Georgien, München.Mallowan, M. E. L. and Rose, J. C.1935 Excavations at Tell Arpachiyah, 1933: in Iraq 2: pp. 1-178.Munchaev, R. M. 1982 Eneolit Kavkaza: in V. M. Masson and N. Merpert (eds), Eneolit SSSR,

Moscow, pp. 100-164.Narimanov, I. G. 1987 The Culture of the Most Ancient Farming and Stock-breeding Population of

Azerbaijan, Baku (in Russian).




Fig. 1: Map showing the location of Göytepe and related sites in the South Caucasus.



Fig. 2: Plan and the excavated areas of Göytepe.



Fig

. 3: P

lan

of th

e bu

ildi

ng r

emai

ns in

the

mai

n ex

cava

tion

are

a of

Göy

tepe

.



Fig

. 4: S

chem

atic

pre

sent

atio

n of

the

nort

h-so

uth

sect

ion

of G

öyte

pe. T

he v

erti

cal s

cale

is e

xagg

erat

ed.



Fig. 6: A circular building with a post-hole at the center of the floor, Square 2AII.

Fig. 5: A circular building of Level 11 in Square 4B. Note that the lower part of the entrance isvisible to the left.



Fig. 7: A massive wall discovered in pit 96F.

Fig. 8: Bilaterally pressure-flaked trapeze-arrowhead.

Fig. 9: Clay anthropomorphic figurine.


FARHAD GULIYEV, YOSHIHIRO NISHIAKI EXCAVATIONS AT THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF GOYTEPE, WEST...

Documents

Transcript of FARHAD GULIYEV, YOSHIHIRO NISHIAKI EXCAVATIONS AT THE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF GOYTEPE, WEST...