Late Paleolithic cultural traditions in the Basht Region of the Southern Zagros of Iran

UNION INTERNATIONALE DES SCIENCES PRÉHISTORIQUES ET PROTOHISTORIQUES INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR PREHISTORIC AND PROTOHISTORIC SCIENCES

PROCEEDINGS OF THE XV WORLD CONGRESS (LISBON, 4-9 SEPTEMBER 2006)

ACTES DU XV CONGRÈS MONDIAL (LISBONNE, 4-9 SEPTEMBRE 2006)

Series Editor: Luiz Oosterbeek

VOL. 28

Session C15

Iran Palaeolithic

Le Paléolithique d’Iran

Edited by

Marcel Otte Ferreidoun Biglari

Jacques Jaubert

BAR International Series 1968 2009

This title published by Archaeopress Publishers of British Archaeological Reports Gordon House 276 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7ED England [email protected] www.archaeopress.com BAR S1968 Proceedings of the XV World Congress of the International Union for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences Actes du XV Congrès Mondial de l’Union Internationale des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques Outgoing President: Vítor Oliveira Jorge Outgoing Secretary General: Jean Bourgeois Congress Secretary General: Luiz Oosterbeek (Series Editor) Incoming President: Pedro Ignacio Shmitz Incoming Secretary General: Luiz Oosterbeek Volume Editors: Marcel Ote, Ferreidoun Biglari and Jacques Jaubert Iran Palaeolithic / Le Paléolithique d’Iran. Vol. 28, Session C15. © UISPP / IUPPS and authors 2009 ISBN 978 1 4073 0501 1 Signed papers are the responsibility of their authors alone. Les texts signés sont de la seule responsabilité de ses auteurs. Contacts : Secretary of U.I.S.P.P. – International Union for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences Instituto Politécnico de Tomar, Av. Dr. Cândido Madureira 13, 2300 TOMAR Email: [email protected] www.uispp.ipt.pt Printed in England by Blenheim Colour Ltd All BAR titles are available from: Hadrian Books Ltd 122 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7BP England [email protected] The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com

125

LATE PALAEOLITHIC CULTURAL TRADITIONS IN THE BASHT REGION OF THE SOUTHERN ZAGROS OF IRAN

Elham GHASIDIAN 1, Ahmad AZADI 2, Saman HEYDARI-GURAN & Nicholas J. CONARD 1 1 Institut für Ur-und Frühgeschichte und Archäologie des Mittelalters, Abteilung Ältere Urgeschichte und Quartärökologie Universität Tübingen, Schloß Hohentübingen, Burgsteige 11, 72070 Tübingen, Germany,

Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] 2 Iranian Center for Archaeological Research Masoudieh Building, Ekbatan Street, Baharestan Square,

Post Box 11416, Tehran, Iran, Email: [email protected]

Abstract: The Basht Region is located in Southwestern Iran near the foothills of Zagros Mountains and on the edge of the Khuzestan Plain. Recent archaeological research has documented many new Upper Paleolithic and several Middle Paleolithic sites. So far the members of the Tübingen-Iranian Stone Age Research Project (TISARP) have collected lithic assemblages from 15 sites, most of which are associated with caves and rockshelters. Compared with published data from other sites of Zagros Region including Yafteh, Gar Arjaneh and Pasangar, the assemblages from the Basht Region document new patterns of blade and bladelet production. Particularly noteworthy are diminutive, single platform, conical and semi-conical bladelet cores. We assume that assemblages containing these cores and associate débitage date to the Upper Paleolithic. This paper presents the technology and typology of the new sites from the Basht Region and compares the laminar technologies documented at these sites in the Southwestern Zagros with laminar technologies known from other parts of the Zagros Mountains.

INTRODUCTION

This paper discusses late Pleistocene and early Holocene lithic assemblages from the Basht Region of the Southwestern Zagros Mountains. This region lies between Gachsaran and Dasht-e Rostam where Basht is the only main town. Historically the lithic industries of the Upper and Epipaleolithic of the Zagros are called Baradostian and Zarzian (Hole and Flannery 1967, Olszewski 1993 a and b, Garrod 1953). Nearly all of the assemblages found within the boundaries of Iran, which are supposed to be Late Paleolithic age, are related to these industries (see for example Berillon et al. 2007, Piperno 1974, Rosenberg 1988, 2003). Here we use the term Late Paleolithic to refer to both the Upper and Epipaleolithic. When examining Late Paleolithic assemblages in Iran, due to the country’s vast size and diverse landscapes, researchers need to consider the distinctive regional attributes rather than only the similarities. The results of the lithic analysis reported here indicate that there is a great deal of regional variation that makes the assemblages from the Basht Region distinctive from those usually considered to be Baradostian or Zarzian. Here, we consider whether there are some Baradostian and Zarzian elements among the Late Paleolithic assemblages of the Basht Region of the Southwestern Zagros, and if we can assign these assemblages to those industries.

This comparative research led us to consider the similarities and differences of the environmental conditions and their consequences for settlement patterns and subsistence practice in the Zagros Region. Archaeological evidence for addressing such questions can be derived from the lithic assemblages of the Basht Region. The main data for comparisons with our assemblages are derived from the lithic analyses of the sites located at the Central Zagros; the sites of Kermanshah and Lorestan (Hole and Flannery 1967,

Olszewski 1993 a and b); and the sites located in the Northern Zagros in Iraqi Kurdestan (Braidwood and Howe 1960, Solecki 1958, Wahida 1975).

The study of the lithic artifacts critically evaluates the Baradostian and Zarzian in this part of Iran and focuses on special characteristics of these assemblages, which are based on the production of bladelet using small bladelet cores.

LATE PALEOLITHIC INDUSTRIES OF THE ZAGROS MOUNTAIN

The Upper and Epipaleolithic periods are documented mainly in the Zagros Mountains in west of the country (see Hole and Flannery 1967, Smith 1986). Nearly all of the lithic assemblages have been defined as belonging to the Baradostian and Zarzian Industries.

The term Baradostian, originates from R.S. Solecki’s dissertation research at Shanidar Cave (Solecki 1958). He dated layer C, which contained the Baradostian between 35.100-28.700 b.p. (Solecki 1963).

Based on the work done by D. Olszewski at Warwasi Rockshelter in Kermanshah and by F. Hole in the shelter sites of the Khorramabad Region of Lorestan, the Upper Paleolithic sequence in the Zagros Region is documented as an industry which in its earlier phases contains a flake-based debitage that through time becomes increasingly dominated by bladelets. According to Olszewski, the typological content of the Baradostian is initially reminiscent of the Middle Paleolithic, with numerous side scrapers, notches and denticulates. The other typical tools are end-scrapers, burins, special kinds of points called Arjeneh points, retouched rods, carinated scrapers and low frequencies of microliths, thus giving these Early

IRAN PALAEOLITHIC / LE PALÉOLITHIQUE D’IRAN

126

Fig. 10.1. Map of the Basht Region and the location of the complexes of Paleolithic sites mentioned in the text (drawings S. Heydari-Guran)

Baradostian assemblages an Upper Paleolithic appearance. The later Upper Paleolithic assemblages of Late Baradostian are typically dominated by microliths and burins, associated with a high frequency of bladelet debitage (Olszewski 1993a and b).

The Zarzian Industry was first described by D.A.E. Garrod (1953), based on her excavations in 1928 at the cave of Zarzi in Northern Iraq. She called the Epipaleolithic period there the Zarzian (Olszewski 1999). The Zarzian Industry consists of relatively small artifacts. The largest tools are less than 10cm in length. The typical tools are backed bladelets and blades, notches and denticulates, end and round scrapers, burins, micro burins, borers, perforators, geometric triangles, trapezes, and lunates (Garrod 1930 after Olszewski 1999). The Zarzian industry has been recognized in several rockshelters and occasionally open air sites in Kermanshah and Lorestan. The shelter sites of Gar Arjeneh and Warwasi, for example have produced a large Zarzian assemblages. Based on different kinds of geometrics some scholars divided Zarzian into sub-phases (Braid-wood and Howe 1960). D. Olszewski in the study of the Warwasi collection has recognized four stratigraphic units within this period. In the earliest part of Zarzian, the percentage of microliths is high and most of them are non-geometrics. Notches and denticulates are frequent. The scrapers, including thumbnail scrapers, are much more

commonly produced on flakes than blades. In the upper part of this deposit, the percentage of geometrics increases, and the abundances of burins and scrapers de-creases. Meanwhile, the number of borers, which do not exist in the earlier phases, increases (Olszewski 1993b).

The Paleolithic sites of Zagros Region are mostly associated with the caves and rockshelters. In rare cases Late Pleistocene artifacts have also been found on open air sites (Mortensen 1993). Before the work of the TISARP (Tübingen Iranian Stone Age Research Project) team except few cases (Rosenberg 1988, Piperno 1974), sites were known mainly from the northern and central parts of the Zagros Range (Conard et al. 2006).

LOCATION AND GEOGRAPHY OF THE BASHT REGION

The Basht Region is located on the edge of the Mesopotamian plain, northeast of the Persian Gulf. Our study area includes the region between the town of Gachsaran and Nourabad. It is located 190 km north and northwest of Arsanjan where an archaeological team from Kyoto University conducted survey in 1977 and documented 144 caves and rockshelter sites, some of which produced stone artifacts from the Paleolithic (Ikeda 1979). In this part of the Zagros Mountains, the Karst

E. GHASIDIAN ET AL.: LATE PALAEOLITHIC CULTURAL TRADITIONS IN THE BASHT REGION OF THE SOUTHERN ZAGROS OF IRAN

127

developed at a moderate rate forming small caves and rockshelters within the stratified folded mountain system (Heydari 2007).

The first complex of sites in our study area lies in the Yagheh Sangar Strait, which connects the fertile plains of Dasht-e Rostam I and II (Fig. 10.1). The Dasht-e Rostam area was surveyed for Neolithic sites in 2003 by an Australian-Iranian team (Potts and Roustaei 2006). The region contains numerous caves and rockshelters most of them associated with finds from the Middle to Epipalaeolithic periods. For the purpose of this paper we discuss only the assemblages belong to the Late Paleolithic. We use this general term because we are not always able clearly to separate Upper or Epipaleolithic components of the assemblages under study. The lithic artifacts usually originate from the slopes beneath the shelters (Conard et al. 2006).

The Basht Region also includes the Khanahmad and Sukhteh areas. The Khanahmad sites are located on a limestone massive near the village of the same name (Fig. 10.1). They were originally identified by A. Azadi. Azadi, Heydari-Guran and Ghasidian collected artifacts from Khanah-mad Cave and Khanahmad Rockshelter I in 2004 (Heydari et al. 2004). The TISARP team added signify-cantly to these collections and confirmed the prevalence of Late Paleolithic material at both sites (Conard et al. 2006). Equally important is the complex of caves and rock shelters at Sukhteh, 7 km west of Khanahmad. Here the TISARP team collected samples from Sukhteh Cave and Sukhteh Rockshelters I, II and III. The great majority of the finds from these sites date to the Late Paleolithic.

Sediments are preserved at the sites at Khanahmad and Sukhteh, and these sites in the Basht region could potentially provide important archaeological information on Late Pleistocene adaptations (Conard et al. 2006).

RAW MATERIAL PROCUREMENT

One of the important topics in our lithic analysis is the study of raw material procurement and use.

Generally the most common raw material used at the Yagheh Sangar sites is silicified red chert, which exists in the small river cobbles. According to the observations of S. Heydari-Guran (Heydari et al. 2004), the source is the Fahlian River (Fig. 10.1). These nodules were easily accessible and could be brought to the sites and worked. In Khanahmad, the raw material is completely different than in Yagheh Sangar. Due to the local access to the tabular gray chert, the frequency of using the red chert nodules from the Fahlian River is very low. The assemblages contain mostly gray chert in tabular form from close to the sites (Heydari et al. 2004). In some cases, however, the cortex of artifacts documents the presence of nodular forms of this raw material. This kind of chert occurs in fine and course grain textures. Some artifacts include a combination of both textures. This attribute increased the rate of damage among the Khanahmad lithic artifacts. Since the seams between the boundaries of fine and coarse grained material provides a fracture plain. That probably is one of the reasons why more angular debris is present in Khanahmad than Yagheh Sangar.

Fig. 10.2. Yagheh Sangar complex of sites, view looking to the northeast (Photo S. Heydari-Guran, August 2006)


128

Tab. 10.1. Tool and debitage frequencies

Sites Category n % Ratio

Tools 130 15.9

Cores 83 10.2

Debitage 437 53.6

Debris 166 20.3

Yagheh Sangar

Total 816 100

tool to core: 1.6 debitage to core: 5.6 debitage to tool: 3.6

Tools 177 12.6

Cores 116 8.2

Debitage 760 53.9

Debris 356 25.3

Khanahmad

Total 1409 100


Tools 130 23.8

Cores 69 12.6

Debitage 234 42.9

Debris 113 20.7

Sukhteh

Total 546 100


From the point of view of raw material, the Sukhteh complex of sites reflects an intermediate situation. Here, the knappers used both nodular red chert from the Fahlian River and tabular grey chert.

ANALYSIS OF LITHICS FROM BASHT REGION

Because of their extremely similar typological and technological features, here we consider each group of sites as a single analytical unit. Except for a few Middle Paleolithic artifacts from Khanahmad Cave and a single possibly Neolithic arrowhead from Sukhteh shelter II, the other artifacts from the three groups of sites show a high degree of typological and technological homogeneity.

Yagheh Sangar Complex

The Yagheh Sangar complex is located on the Shiraz-Ahvaz road, in the strait between the Dasht-e Rostam plains (Figs. 10.1 and 10.2). Collections from six caves and rockshelters produced more than 800 lithic artifacts (Table 10.1).

The tools comprise nearly 16 percent of the assemblages. They are mostly made on flake blanks (Table 10.3). Flakes are also the most numerous class of debitage (83.5%) (Table 10.2). But this observation does not lead us to consider the assemblage to be strictly flake based. In contrast to this relatively large amount of the flake debitage, flake cores are nearly absent. The most common tool classes at the Yagheh Sangar sites are different kinds of irregularly retouched flakes that comprise more than half of the tools. Borers are also common. Microliths comprise only a small portion of the assemblage. They are non-geometric and include small round scrapers,

thumbnail scrapers and retouched bladelets. Lesser amounts of carinated scrapers, end scrapers and scrapers on flakes round out of the assemblage (Fig. 10.3).

Tab. 10.2. Different frequencies of debitage categories for the site complexes of Basht region (tools are not included)

Sites Debitage N %

Flakes 365 83.5

Blades 62 14.2

Others 10 2.3 Yagheh Sangar

Total 437 100

Flakes 541 71.2

Blades 161 21.2

Others 58 7.6 Khanahmad

Total 760 100

Flakes 182 77.8

Blades 33 14.1

Others 19 8.1 Sukhteh

Total 234 100

We divided the tools into formally retouched artifacts and informally utilized pieces. Although our lithic artifacts come from surface collections and were subjected of rolling and trampling, 22 probable utilized tools could be recognized (Table 10.3). Due to taphonomic damage only 12 percent of the tools are complete. The degree of erosion on the slope below the shelters was high, and a portion of the light and small artifacts has probably been washed away. This may in part explain the low proportion of the microliths in the Yagheh Sangar assemblage. The


129

Fig. 10.3. Lithic artifacts from Yagheh Sangar (drawings E. Ghasidian)

Tab. 10.3. Details on tools from the site complexes of the Basht region

Yagheh Sangar Khanahmad Sukhteh

Category N % N % N %

blade(let) blank 24 18.5 37 20.9 29 22.3

flake blank 106 81.5 140 79.1 101 77.7

formal 108 83.1 114 64.4 113 86.9

utilized 22 16.9 63 35.6 17 13.1

complete 16 12.3 43 24.3 39 30

nearly complete 73 56.2 89 50.3 60 46.2

fragment 41 31.5 45 25.4 31 23.8

Total 130 177 130

artifacts, however, show a high degree of technological and typological homogeneity as well as a consistent signature for raw material acquisition. The artifacts are mostly made on local river cobbles of fine

grained red chert. Based on this high degree of homogeneity, we think that most of the assemblage originates from a relatively short phase of occupation during the Late Paleolithic.


130

Fig. 10.4. Khanahmad complex of sites, view looking to the south (Photo S. Heydari-Guran, August 2005)

Khanahmad Complex

The Khanahmad complex consists of one cave and three rockshelters (Figs. 10.1 and 10.4). Since they are located close to each other, the similar characteristics in the lithic artifacts are not surprising.

Khanahmad Cave yielded Middle Paleolithic through Epipalaeolithic artifacts. The Middle Paleolithic artifacts were found inside the cave. The Levallois method has been used to produce some of the tools and debitage (Fig. 10.5:1,2). Thirteen Middle Paleolithic tools include side scrapers, dejetè scraper and retouched flakes. Several of these finds are covered with a calcium carbonate crust. In the middle of the cave, there is a relatively large block of breccia that indicates a high degree of humidity inside the cave. Some artifacts and bones are embedded inside the breccia. The Middle Paleolithic artifacts are made on a different raw material than the younger finds. They are mostly made on the silicified limestone and are also larger than the Late Paleolithic artifacts. These observations make it easy to distinguish between Middle and Late Paleolithic artifacts. Unfortunately, flowing water carried a way most of the Middle Paleolithic artifacts and deposited the younger materials on the slope in front of the cave and on the slopes of Khanahmad Rockshelter I. Since these two sites are only 15 m far from each other and their lithic assemblages are similar, we assumed that these sites were being used contemporaneously. The same applies to the other rockshelters of Khanahmad.

Due to the irregularities in the gray chert from the region, the debitage includes a high proportion of angular debris (Table 10.1). Flakes comprise more than 70 percent of whole debitage (Table 10.2). The great majority of tools were made on flakes (Table 10.3). Tools comprise 12.6 percent of the whole lithic artifacts in the Khanahmad assemblages. The utilized and complete tools are more abundant than in Yagheh Sangar, but the rate of rolling and edge damaging for this surface material is high (Table 10.3). The most common tools in the Khanahmad assemblages are different kinds of retouched flakes. Scrapers on flakes and end scrapers are common among the tool types. The Khanahmad assemblages like Yagheh Sangar do not include many microliths. Those ones present are retouched bladelets while geometric pieces are absent (Fig. 10.5, Table 10.4). The size range of the artifacts varies from the 6 to 50 mm in length (Table 10.5). Small artifacts are underrepresented in this surface collection.

Sukhteh Complex

The last group of sites is located 25 km east and southeast of Gachsaran (Fig. 10.1). The Sukhteh complex consists of three rockshelters and one cave (Fig. 10.6). Like the two last complexes, most of the stone artifacts have been collected from the slopes below the sites. Around 29 percent of the whole assemblage from Sukhteh consist of tools (Table 10.1). The great majority of the debitage consist of flakes (Table 10.2). Sukhteh reveals a higher


131

Fig. 10.5. Lithic artifacts of Khanahmad (drawings E. Ghasidian)

percentage of formal and complete tools than Yagheh Sangar and Khanahmad (Table 10.3). Again the tools are characterized by a high frequency of retouched pieces which are mostly obtained on flake blanks. Like Khanahmad, end scrapers and scrapers on flake are well represented (Fig. 10.7, Table 10.4).

Unidirectional bladelet cores, however, are the most abundant core type. The comparative absence of bladelets

is a reflection of the under representation of small artifacts in the surface collection.

Like Yagheh Sangar and Khanahmad, the tools tend to be of small sized (Table 10.5).

The existence of a large amount of angular debris is the result of the texture of the raw material, which contains many fractures. This is especially the case with the gray


132

Tab. 10.4. Tools types from the site complexes of the Basht Region


Tool class N % N % N %

scrapers 7 5.4 37 20.9 20 15.4

burins 12 9.2 34 19.2 18 13.8

borers 17 13.1 16 9.1 5 3.8

backed bladelets 4 3.1 8 4.5 10 7.7

Truncated bladelets 1 0.8 2 1.1 1 0.8

notch/denticulates 5 3.8 2 1.1 3 2.3

microliths 7 5.4 6 3.4 12 9.2

retouched flakes 73 56.1 67 37.9 57 43.9

varia 4 3.1 5 2.8 4 3.1

total 130 100 177 100 130 100

Fig. 10.6. Sukhteh complex of sites, view looking to the south (Photo N.J. Conard, August 2005)

Tab. 10.5. Average size of the tools (both flake and blade blanks); L: length, W: width, T: thickness; all in millimeter


Tools L W T L W T L W T

Average 20.4 44.5 7.8 21.2 15.9 5.5 19.8 15.2 6.3

Max 41 42 22 50 40 17 80 56 24

Min 8 4 2 6 3 1 6 6 2


133

Fig. 10.7. Lithic artifacts of Sukhteh (drawings E. Ghasidian)

chert, which produces fractures with sharp angles. While the whole assemblages show a largely consistent technology and typology, the presence of a bifacially retouched arrowhead is noteworthy. Such points have not been described in the Iranian literature but are known from the Bronze Age of the Khuzestan Plain (personal observation of S. Heydari-Guran)

LITHIC TECHNOLOGY, CORES, TOOLS AND DEBITAGE

Cores are a highly informative class of artifacts for studying lithic technology. In all 268 cores have been collected from these three complexes of sites. Details are

provided in Table 10.6. The first outstanding point about the cores is that all of them are platform cores, according to the unified lithic taxonomy (Conard et al. 2004). In each complex nearly half of the cores are single platform cores, while those with two striking platforms, comprise almost one third of the total in each those from complex. These include cores with two opposed striking platforms as well as many cores with two independent striking platforms and removal surfaces. Nearly all of them were used to produce bladelets. The cores from Yagheh Sangar retained more cortex than the other complexes, which is probably due to the short distance between the sites located in Yagheh Sangar Strait and the sources of Fahlian River chert (Table 10.7).


134

Tab. 10.6. Description on the cores in Basht complexes; A: YS: Yagheh Sangar, B: KA: Khanahmad, C: S: Sukhteh, Platform preparation: 1: plain, 2: two facets, 3: three or more facets Completeness: 1: complete, 2: broken but more than half complete, 3: broken but less than half complete. Reduction surface: flat: removals obtained from the flat surface of the core, narrow: removals obtained from the narrow surface of the core

Raw material Core type Number of platform

Platform preparation Compelteness Reduction

surface

Sites Reddish brown gray Blade(let) Flake 1 2 <3 1 2 3 1 2 3 broad narrow

YS 112 1 1 1 1 1 1

YS 113 41 40 1 29 9 3 15 15 11 14 19 8 22 19

YS 114 27 3 30 21 8 1 19 7 4 8 12 10 19 11

YS 115 4 4 1 2 1 1 3 1 3 4

YS117 6 1 7 5 2 3 4 2 5 6 1

Total 79 4 82 1 56 22 5 39 29 15 24 36 23 52 31

A


Platform preparation Compelteness Reduction

surface

sites Reddish brown gray Blade(let) Flake 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 broad narrow

KA I 4 17 20 1 12 7 2 18 3 1 19 1 18 3

KA II 5 42 42 5 34 10 3 23 21 3 6 31 10 29 18

KA III 16 29 45 23 19 3 33 9 3 9 25 11 40 5

KAIV 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 3

Total 27 89 110 6 71 37 8 76 34 6 17 76 23 90 26

B


Platform Preparation Compelteness Reduction

surface

Sites Reddish brown gray Blade(let) Flake 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 broad narrow

S I 13 9 17 5 14 6 2 15 7 13 8 1 20 2

S II 13 19 24 8 21 7 4 17 13 2 11 14 7 21 11

S III 8 7 14 1 8 7 12 3 3 10 2 13 2

Total 34 35 55 14 43 20 6 44 23 2 27 32 10 54 15

C

Tab. 10.7. The amount of cortex on the cores in each site complex of Basht Region

Cortex % 0 Up to 50 50-70 70-100

Yagheh Sangar 24 44 8 7

Khanahmad 83 27 4 2

Sukhteh 37 23 7 2

Striking platform preparation tends to be minimal. The removal of a single primary flake was typically, and the platform preparation was limited to the removal of two flakes (Table 10.6. Figs. 10.3, 10.5 and 10.7). In all assemblages most of the cores were discarded after arriving at a highly exhausted state, while especially in

Khanahmad many cores were cast a way after the appearance of hinges caused by irregularities in the raw material. The reduction of bladelets usually occurred on the flat surface of the cores, although in some cases the knappers preferred to use the narrow face of the cores. Most of the cores in all the assemblages are similar, and the presence of the characteristics mentioned above is consistent. That the cores are standardized can be seen also from the metric values and the average dimensions of cores in the three complexes. The cores from Khanahmad are a little larger than those of the two other complexes, which seems to relate to the size of the raw material (Table 10.8). It is interesting to observe that the average sizes of the cores are suitable for making most of the tool categories. The cores were usually thoroughly exploited before discard. The tool/core ratio lies


135

Tab. 10.8. Average size of the cores in three complexes of sites; L: length, W: width, T: thickness

Sites Yagheh Sangar, n= 83 Khanahmad, n= 116 Sukhteh, n= 69

Cores L W T L W T L W T

Average 22.6 20 16.2 27.9 24.1 18.5 20.40 19.6 17.3

between 1.5 and 1.9 for each of the three complexes (Table 10.1).

The three Late Paleolithic complexes of Yagheh Sangar, Khanahmad, and Sukhteh show a great range of similarities. As seen in Table 10.3, the assemblages from these three groups of sites reflect a focus on the production the flakes and, based on the cores, also on the production of bladelets. The relative under-representation of bladelets despite the large number of bladelet cores is in significant measure, the result of the poor recovery of bladelets due to their small size. The most abundant tools in these assemblages are different kinds of retouched flakes. We observed small numbers of retouched bladelets as well. These Late Paleolithic artifacts are small. We interpret this observation as being in part the result of the small size of the available raw materials. The low percentage of carinated scrapers and burins and the great abundance of highly reduced cores demonstrate that the cores were usually made from cobbles, rather than using carinated scrapers and burins to obtain bladelets. Another important element among the tools is the low amount of microlithic geometrics like lunates, trapezes, and triangles which is too rare to include separately in figures 10.8 and 10.9. Far more numerous than these geometrics are the non-geometric microliths made on small bladelets. The burins, borers and other tool types represent a rather small portion of the tools, while scrapers are more common at all three groups of sites.

The patterns of raw material use at the Basht sites show clear differences between the assemblages, which reflect the local availability of raw materials. Reddish-brown chert, for example, dominates at the Yagheh Sangar sites, and the tabular gray chert is the most abundant raw material at the Khanahmad sites, while both of these kinds of raw material are well represented at Sukhteh. The great majority of the cores are single platform bladelet cores, with regular unidirectional reduction. Despite their small size and high degree of reduction, they often preserve high amounts of cortex, which suggests that the raw materials were readily available in the form of small chert cobbles.

COMPARISONS AND DISCUSSION

The Upper Paleolithic assemblages, in central and northern parts of the Zagros are often flake based. In her lithic analysis of the assemblages from Warwasi Rockshelter in Kermanshah, D. Olszewski (1999) presents a definition for the Upper Paleolithic of Zagros:

“The Upper Paleolithic sequence in the Zagros Region presently appears to document an industry which in its earlier phases contains a flake-based debitage that through time becomes increasingly dominated by bladelets. The typological content is initially remi-niscent of the Middle Paleolithic, with numerous sidescrapers and notch/denticulates. These types of tools, however, are contextually associated with end-scrapers, burins, and low frequencies of microliths, thus giving these early assemblages a characteristic of Upper Paleolithic appearance. The later Upper Paleolithic assemblages are typically microlith- and burin- dominated, in conjunction with a high frequency of bladelet debitage (Olszewski 1999: 170).”

She claims that the later Upper Paleolithic of the Zagros shows similarities to the burin/carinated element do-minated Aurignacian assemblages of Central Europe (Olszewski 1999). This claim, however, is difficult to reconcile with the composition of Aurignacian assembla-ges from the Swabian Jura (Hahn 1977, 1988). Similarly, Otte’s (Otte et al. 2006, Otte and Kozlowski 2007) more radical suggestion that the Aurignacian originates in Iran stands in sharp contrast to European data that point to Upper and Middle Danube as one of the key areas for the development of the classic early Aurignacian (Conard & Bolus 2006, Teyssandier et al. 2006 ).

Although sites from the Basht Region produced mainly bladelet cores, the great majority of debitage (nearly 80% in each complex) are flakes. This observation may indicate that the rate of erosion at the sites was high and the bladelets, due to their smaller size, have been washedaway. The cores (Table 10.8), which provide the best source of technological information from these sites, indicate that more bladelets with smaller size were originally present in the assemblages. The assemblages from Shanidar layer C (Baradostian or Upper Paleolithic), and Warwasi levels AA-LL, contain far more microliths than the assemblages presented here. The only category of small tools recovered from the Basht sites is the thumbnail scraper. In all we recovered only 8 thumbnail scrapers, and their average size is 12 millimeters in length and width. In the future, following excavations using water screening, we expect to have better data for comparing our assemblages. The absolute lack of the geometrics has two probable explanations. First, the function of the sites and kind of settlements and subsistence may not have required microliths. Second, the technology of geometrics did not exist during the period to which our assemblages belong.


136

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

scra

pers

burins

borers

backed

pieces

trunca

tions

notch/d

entic

ulates

micr

olith

s

retou

ched

pieces

varia

Warwasi n:1148

Yagheh Sangar n:130

Sukhteh n:130

Khanahmad n:177

Fig. 10.8. Tool classes of three complexes of sites from the Basht Region and from Warwasi layers P-Z

(Late Aurignacian). These data are discrete rather than continuous. The curves are included for heuristic reasons to aid comparisons. Warwasi data from Olszewski 1999

The assemblages from the Basht Region share some similarities with the ones in levels AA-LL in Warwasi that to be Early Zagros Aurignacian. The Early Zagros Aurignacian is characterized by a considerable number of side scrapers, as well as modest frequencies of carinated scrapers and carinated burins, Font-Yves points, Dufour bladelets and truncated-facetted pieces (Olszewski and Dibble 2006).

According to the negative scars on the cores, the technology of the Late Paleolithic of the Basht Region was probably focused on the production of bladelets. The assemblage of tools and debitage, however, lack large number of bladelets. Although the surface assemblages described here probably contain materials of different ages, Aurignacian elements are not present among the Basht assemblage.

In the upper layers of the Warwasi (P-Z), which were first called late Baradostian and have now been published as Late Aurignacian (Olszewski 1993a, Olszewski and Dibble 1994, 2006), the similarities to the Basht assemblages are more visible (Fig. 10.8). The retouched flakes are the most frequent tool class among the three complexes presented here, while in the Warwasi Late Baradostian/Aurignacian assemblage, microliths are the most frequent tool class. Although this is probably in part the result of erosion or recovery, the features of the Diagram (Fig. 10.8) show our assemblages are different than Warwasi. Comparisons with the Baradostian assemblage of Shanidar layer C show still greater differences. At Shanidar most of the tools are different kinds of scrapers, and the microliths comprise a small portion of the whole assemblage (Table 10.9). Notches and denticulates which comprise 10 percent of the

assemblage from Shanidar are partly represented in the three complexes from the Basht Region.

Our assemblages also reveal significant differences with the Upper Paleolithic (or so called Aurignacian; see Otte et al. 2006, Otte and Kozłowskĭ 2007) of Yafteh. There, the industry is heavily dominated by bladelet production. The assemblage of tools contains many bladelet tools including Arjeneh points,1 Dufour bladelets, ‘Aurignacian blades’, numerous burins of different types, end scrapers on blades, rare borers and splintered pieces, carinated end scrapers and carinated burins (Otte et al. 2006). These tool types are not observed specifically in our assemblages. Because the assemblages from Basht are survey finds, in contrast to the stratified sites like Yafteh Cave, we did not recover bone tools.

The lithic assemblages from the Basht Region also contrast those from the Zarzian of Warwasi and Zarzi (Table 10.10, Fig. 10.9). The percentage of microliths, notches and denticulates are higher than the Zarzian of Warwasi. Although these tool types exist in our three groups of sites, they are not as significant as in Warwasi. The lack of retouched flakes in Zarzi Cave is noteworthy and may be due in part to the different categorization. In fact the Zarzian tools from Warwasi share few similarities with Zarzian of Zarzi Cave which is very noticeable in Table 10.10. The existence of different types of geometrics like trapezes, triangles, and lunates in Shanidar (Solecki 1958), Zarzi (Wahida 1999), and in Warwasi (Olszewski 1993b) is one of the most important elements that help to define these assemblages as Zarzian, 1 These are pointed bladelets with a nearly rectilinear cross section and with short, steep retouched edges.


137

Tab. 10.9. Comparison of the tools from three complexes of the Basht Region with the Warwasi 1 (the assemblage considered layers P-Z; the Late Baradostian) and Warwasi 2 (layers AA-LL; the earlier phase of Baradostian and Shanidar layer C). Source: Olszewski 1993a. Here we tentatively equate our category of retouched flakes with Olszewski’s category retouched pieces. Similarly, we equate our category of backed bladelets with the category of backed pieces to facilitate intersite comparisons

Warwasi 1 Warwasi 2 Shanidar Yaghe Sangar Khanahmad Sukhteh Tool class

N % N % N % N % N % N %

scrapers 110 9.5 318 32.3 132 38.7 7 5.4 37 20.9 20 15.4

burins 239 20.8 70 7.1 100 29.3 12 9.2 34 19.2 18 13.8

borers 23 2 32 3.2 2 0.5 17 13.1 16 9.1 5 3.8

backed pieces 12 1 2 0.2 2 0.5 4 3.1 8 4.5 10 7.7

truncations 23 2 14 1.4 2 0.5 1 0.8 2 1.1 1 0.8

notch/denticulates 193 16.8 228 23 34 9.9 5 3.8 2 1.1 3 2.3

microliths 330 28.7 105 10.6 16 4.7 7 5.4 6 3.4 12 9.2

retouched pieces 136 11.8 188 18.9 4 1.2 73 56.1 67 37.9 57 43.9

varia 82 7.1 27 2.7 49 14.4 4 3.1 5 2.8 4 3.1

total 1148 99.7 984 99.4 341 99.7 130 100 177 100 130 100

Tab. 10.10. Comparison of the tools of three complexes with the Zarzian artifacts of Warwasi and Zarzi Source: Olszewski 1993b and Wahida 1981. Here we tentatively equate our category of retouched flakes with the category retouched pieces. Similarly, we equate our category of backed bladelets with the category of backed pieces to facilitate intersite comparisons

Warwasi Zarzi Yagheh Sangar Khanahmad Sukhteh Tool class

N % N % N % N % N %

scrapers 268 7.7 27 11.3 7 5.4 37 20.9 20 15.4

burins 66 1.9 13 5.4 12 9.2 34 19.2 18 13.8

borers 99 2.8 2 0.8 17 13.1 16 9.1 5 3.8

backed pieces 70 2 71 29.8 4 3.1 8 4.5 10 7.7

truncations 79 2.2 0 0 1 0.8 2 1.1 1 0.8

notch/denticulates 868 25 68 28.5 5 3.8 2 1.1 3 2.3

microliths 1466 42.3 21 8.8 7 5.4 6 3.4 12 9.2

retouched pieces 420 12.1 0 0 73 56.1 67 37.9 57 43.9

varia 127 3.7 36 15.1 4 3.1 5 2.8 4 3.1

total 3463 100 238 100 130 100 177 100 130 100

while the lack of these elements prevents us calling our assemblages Zarzian. Additionally the retouched pieces from the Basht sites, which are mostly made on the flake blanks and include scrapers underscore that they are not Zarzian assemblages.

According to these results from the Basht surface assemblages, we suggest a similar economic function for the three complexes in contrast to the sites in north and central parts of the Zagros. These data, however, are not sufficient to reject completely the hypothesis of a connection between the Late Paleolithic inhabitants of the Basht Region with those of the Northern and Central Zagros.

Clearly we need more well documented and securely dated assemblages to assess the nature of assemblage variability in the Late Paleolithic of Iran and neighboring regions. Our assemblages from the Basht Region do not conform to the definitions of either the Baradostian or the Zarzian.

CONCLUSION

The lithic assemblages from the Basht Region show strong similarities, so we think they belong to a fairly well defined period. Their technological and typological characteristics relate them to the Late Paleolithic period.


138

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

scra

pers

burins

borers

backed

pieces

trunca

tions

notch/d

entic

ulates

micr

olith

s

retou

ched

pieces

varia

Warwasi n:3463

Yagheh Sangar n:130

Sukhteh n:130

Khanahmad n:177

Fig. 10.9. Tool classes of three complexes and Warwasi Zarzian layer. These data are discrete

rather than continuing. The curves are included for heuristic reasons to aid comparisons. Warwasi data from Olszewski 1993b

Compared to the Upper Paleolithic sites in other parts of the Zagros Mountains like Shanidar, Warwasi, and Zarzi, the Basht assemblages document a regional industry which has few elements in common with those sites (Tables 10.9 and 10.10). Obviously, we have no well dated strati-graphic observations in these surface assemblages. However because of the specific regional characteristics, like core shape and size, and the lack of the significant numbers of burins, a good indicator for the Baradostian at the sites located further north of the Zagros (Olszewski 1993a), we do not classify the Basht assemblages as Baradostian.

The causes of this variability are related to site function, duration of occupation, raw material acquisition, technological needs and cultural affiliation.

The Basht Valley provided a pathway for game during the Late Pleistocene. These strategic locations provided excellent views of game paths and access to multiple ecological settings including lowland valleys with rivers, ponds, and springs, as well as more rugged highland ecological settings (Conard et al. 2006).

The new excavation in the Basht Region at the cave site of Ghar-e Boof (Yagheh Sangar 114) provides stratified material to clarify the ideas we touched upon here. Analysis of data from excavations and additional surveys should help us to address the following issues.

Cultural relationships, probably existed between the residents of the sites located in the area between the Dasht-e Rostam and Gachsaran. If so, we could define a

regional Paleolithic population with different groups who follow the same way of living and subsistence using the same technology and typology.

Residents of the Basht Region may have spent relatively brief periods at the sites and did not use them as permanent settlements. The locations of the sites as a game outlook over the floor of the valley provided a good opportunity for hunting and may have made the sites attractive for short term use. The presence of locally available lithic raw materials added to the attractivity of the sites.

Due to their elevation of 700-900 m a.s.l., the sites could have served as seasonal camps and were probably mainly used during the summer. In the winter these groups may have moved to lower elevations like Khuzestan at the edge of the Mesopotamian Plain.

Although they are broadly similar, differences between the assemblages from these three complexes are probably related to site function, aspects of mobility and raw material constraints. These broad similarities could also be taken to indicate that the highly mobile populations occupied the whole Basht Region and repeatedly left small assemblages at these sites in connection with their subsistence rounds.

While work on the Basht Region is just beginning, we think the region has considerable potential for studying Late Paleolithic adaptations and for defining regional cultural traditions in addition to the Baradostian and Zarzian.


139

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Dr. M. Azarnoush (former head of Iranian Center of Archeological Research; ICAR) and Dr. H. Fazeli (the current head of the ICAR) for permission to conduct this research. Many thanks are to Mohsen Zaidee and Naser Heydari for their contributions in the fieldwork. We are indebted also to Luc Moreau and the University of Tübingen for helpful advices on lithic technology.

Bibliography

BERRILLON, J., A. ASGARI KHANGHAH, P. ANTOINE, J-J. BAHAIN, B. CHEVRIER, V. ZEITOUN, N. AMINZADEH, M. BEHESHTI, H. EBADOLLAHI CHANZANAGH and S. NOCHADI. 2007. Discovery of new open-air Paleolithic localities in Central Alborz, Northern Iran, In: Journal of Human Evolution. Vol. 52, Issue 4. Elsevier Ltd. Pp. 380-387.

BRAIDWOOD, R.J. and B. HOWE. 1960. Prehistoric investigation in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, No. 31. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

CONARD, N.J., M. SORESSI, J.E. PARKINGTON, S. WURZ and R. YATES. 2004. Unified lithic taxonomy based on patterns of core reduction. In: South African Archaeological Bulletin 59 (179): Pp. 13-17.

CONARD, N.J., E. GHASIDIAN, S. HEYDARI, M. ZAIDEE. 2006. Report on the 2005 Survey of the Tübingen-Iranian Stone Age Research Project in the Provinces of Esfahan, Fars and Kohgiluyeh-Boyera-hmad. In: Archaeological Reports 5, ICAR, Tehran.

CONARD, N.J. and M. BOLUS, 2006. The Swabian Aurignacian and its Place in European Prehistory. In: Toward a Definition of the Aurignacian. Bar-Yosef and Zilhao (eds.). Trabalhos de Arcqueologia, Lisboa 45: Pp. 209-237.

COON, C.S. 1951. Cave Exploratons in Iran 1949. Museum Monographs, The University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

GARROD, D.A.E. 1953. The relations between southwest Asia and Europe in the Later Paleolithic age. In: Journal of World History, no: 1, Pp: 13-38.

HAHN, J. 1977. Aurignacien das ältere Jungpaläo-lithikum in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Böhlau Verlag Köln Wien.

HAHN, J. 1988. Die Geißenklösterle-Höhle in Achtal bei Blaubeuren I. Fundhorizontabildung und Besiedlung im Mittelpaläolithikum und im Aurignacien. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss Verlag.

HEYDARI, S., A. AZADI and E. GHASIDIAN. 2004. Paleolithic survey in Southwestern Zagros, Basht

Valley. Unpublished manuscript, Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization, Tehran, Iran (in Persian).

HEYDARI, S. 2007. The impact of geology and geo-morphology on cave and rockshelter archaeological site formation, preservation and distribution in the Zagros Mountains of Iran. In: Geoarchaology: An International Journal, vol. 22; no. 6, Pp: 653-699.

HOLE, F. and K. FLANNERY. 1967. The prehistory of southwestern Iran: A preliminary report. In: Pro-ceedings of the prehistoric society 33: Pp. 147-206.

IKEDA, J. 1979. Preliminary Report of an Archaeolo-gical Survey in Arsanjan Area, Fars Province, Iran, 1977, Kyoto University, Kyoto; Japan.

MORTENSEN, P. 1993. Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic Sites in the Hulailan Valley. In: The Paleolithic Prehistory of the Zagros-Tauros. Olszewski and Dibble (eds.). The University Museum of Archaeo-logy and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Pp. 187-206.

OLSZEWSKI, D.I. 1993a. The Late Baradostian Occupation at Warwasi Rockshelter,Iran. In: The Paleolithic Prehistory of the Zagros-Tauros. Olszewski and Dibble (eds.). The University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Pp. 187-206.

OLSZEWSKI, D.I. 1993b. The Zarzian Occupation at Warwasi Rockshelter, Iran. In: The Paleolithic Prehistory of the Zagros-Tauros. Olszewski and Dibble (eds.). The University Museum of Archaeo-logy and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Pp. 207-217.

OLSZEWSKI D.I. 1999. The early Upper Paleolithic in the Zagros Mountains. In: Dorothy Garrod and the Progress of the Paleolithic Studies in the Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East and Europe. Davies, and Charles (eds). Oxbow Books, Oxford. Pp. 167-180.

OLSZEWSKI, D.I. and H. DIBBLE. 1994. The Zagros Aurignacian. In: Current Anthropology vol. 35, No. I, Pp. 68-75.

OLSZEWSKI, D.I. and H. DIBBLE. 2006. To be or not to be Aurignacian: the Zagros Upper Paleolithic. In: Toward a Definition of the Aurignacian. Bar-Yosef and Zilhao (eds.). Trabalhos de Arcqueologia 45. Pp. 355-373.

OTTE, M. and J. KOZŁOWSKĬ. 2004. La Place du Baradostien dans l’origine du Paléolithique Supérieur d’Eurasie, In: L’Anthropologie 108, Pp.395-406.

OTTE, M., F. BIGLARI, D. FLAS, S. SHIDRANG, N. ZWYNS, M. MASHKOUR, R. NADERI, A. MOHASEB, N. HASHEMI, J. DARVISH and V. RADU. 2006. The Aurignacian in the Zagros region: new research at Yafteh Cave, Lorestan, Iran. In: Antiquity, vol. 81, no. Pt311, Pp.82-96.

OTTE, M. and J. KOZŁOWSKĬ. 2007. L’Aurignacien du Zagros. ERAUL, Liège.


140

POTTS, D. and K. ROUSTAEI. 2006. The Mamasani archaeological project Stage One: A report on the first two seasons of the ICAR-University of Sydney expedition to the Mamasani district, Fars Province, Iran. Potts and Roustaei (eds.). Iranian center for archaeological research, Deputy of research. Tehran.

PIPERNO, M. 1973. Upper Paleolithic caves in southern Iran. Preliminary report. In: East and west, Vol. 24, Pp. 9-13.

ROSENBERG, M. 1988. Paleolithic Settlement Patterns in the Marv Dasht Fars Province, Iran. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

ROSENBERG, M. 2003. The Epipaleolithic in the Marvdasht. In : Miller, N.F., Abdi, K. (eds.). Yeki bud, Yeki Uabud, Essays on the Archaeologcy of Iran in Honor of William M. Sumner. University of California, Los Angeles. Pp. 98-108.

SMITH, P.E.L. 1986. Paleolithic Archaeology in Iran. The University Museum of Archaeology and Anthro-pology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

SOLECKI, R.S. 1958. The Baradostian Industry and the Upper Palaeolithic in the Near East. PhD. dissertation, Colombia University.

SOLECKI, R.S. 1963. Prehistory in Shanidar Valley Northern Iraq. In: Science, January 18, vol.139, No. 1551: Pp.178-193.

TEYSSANDIER, N., M. BOLUS and N.J. CONARD. 2006. The Early Aurignacian in central Europe and its place in a European perspective. In: Toward a Definition of the Aurignacian. Bar-Yosef and Zilhao (eds.). Trabalhos de Arcqueologia 45. Pp. 241-256.

WAHIDA, G. 1975. The reconsideration of the Upper Paleolithic in the Zagros Mountains. PhD. Disserta-tion, University of Cambridge.

WAHIDA, G. 1981. The re-excavation of Zarzi, 1971. In: Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, Vol. 47, Pp. 19-40.

WAHIDA, G. 1999. The Zarzian Industry of the Zagros Mountains. In: Dorothy Garrod and the Progress of the Paleolithic Studies in the Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East and Europe. Davies, and Charles (eds). Oxbow Books, Oxford. Pp. 167-180.

Late Paleolithic cultural traditions in the Basht Region of the Southern Zagros of Iran

Documents

Transcript of Late Paleolithic cultural traditions in the Basht Region of the Southern Zagros of Iran