Recent Paleolithic Surveys in Luristan

Recent Paleolithic Surveys in LuristanAuthor(s): K. Roustaei, H. Vahdati Nasab, F. Biglari, S. Heydari, G. A. Clark, and J. M. LindlyReviewed work(s):Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 45, No. 5 (December 2004), pp. 692-707Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for AnthropologicalResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/425636 .Accessed: 14/09/2012 23:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaboratingwith JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wennergren

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wennergren

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/425636?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

692

Reports

Recent Paleolithic Surveys inLuristan1

k . roustaei , h . vahdati nasab , f . b iglari ,s . heydari , g . a . clark , and j . m. l indlyCenter for Archaeological Research, No. 15, EkbatanSt., Baharestan Sq., Tehran, Iran (Roustaei)/Department of Anthropology, Arizona StateUniversity, Tempe, AZ 85287-2042,U.S.A.([email protected],[email protected]) (Vahdati, Clark)/Center forPaleolithic Research, National Museum of Iran, Si-yeTir St., Imam Khomeini Avenue, Tehran, Iran (Biglari,Heydari)/SWCA, Inc., Environmental Consultants,2120 N. Central Avenue, Suite 130, Phoenix, AZ85004, U.S.A. (Lindly). 15 iv 04

[Supplementary material appears in the electronic edition of thisissue on the journal’s web page (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CA/home.html).]

Judging from scarce archaeological evidence, the inter-montane valleys in the Zagros Mountain chain havebeen occupied by hunter-gatherers at least since the endof the Middle Pleistocene. Although research in the areadates from Carleton Coon’s work in the 1940s and 1950s(e.g., 1951, 1957), geopolitical instability (e.g., the revo-lutions in Iraq [1958] and Iran [1979], the Iraq-Iran War[1980–88]) has effectively precluded sustained researchthere since the early 1970s. With the exception of thepioneering efforts of Frank Hole and Kent Flannery inLuristan in the early 1960s, what was done was not con-ducted under problem-oriented “modern-era” researchdesigns, and as a result even the basic culture history ofthe region is very little known. Although isolated Acheu-lean bifaces and other typologically Lower Paleolithictools have been recovered from a few surface collections(e.g., Pal Barik in Luristan), nothing more than their pres-ence is known.

The Middle Paleolithic is somewhat better reported,

� 2004 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Re-search. All rights reserved 0011-3204/2004/4505-0007$10.00

1. We are grateful to Maziyar Asrafian, director of the Paleontologyand Paleoanthropology Group, Iranian Cultural Heritage Organi-zation, and Davood Davoodi for their help and support. Jalil Gol-shan, deputy research director, and Masoud Azarnoush, director ofthe Archaeological Research Center, Iranian Cultural Heritage Or-ganization, also provided support. This contribution first appearedin Farsi in the Iranian Journal of Archaeology and History 16(1):45–64, and a modified and expanded version is published here withthe permission of the ICHO.

in part because of reanalysis and publication during the1980s and 1990s of collections stored in the UnitedStates and the United Kingdom for more than two dec-ades (e.g., Baumler and Speth 1993, Dibble and Holdaway1993). More important, surveys by Iranian archaeologistsover the past two decades have located a number ofMousterian sites in the Kermanshah region (e.g., Rous-taei 1999). Mostly caves and rockshelters, they includeDo-Ashkaft (Biglari and Heydari 2001), Awi Kher (Biglariand Abdi 1999:6), Cham-e Souran (Biglari and Abdi 1999),and new sites near the famous Bisitun rockshelter (Big-lari 2000, 2001). The Middle–Upper Paleolithic transi-tion is completely undocumented, however, and ourknowledge of the later phases of the Upper Paleolithicand the entire Epipaleolithic rests largely upon modernstudies of old collections from Warwasi rockshelter (Ol-szewski 1993a, b), first tested by Bruce Howe in the1950s (Braidwood 1960). The best-studied part of the Zag-ros is Iraqi Kurdistan, where Robert Braidwood’s inves-tigations into the origins of food production during the1950s also yielded considerable information on the Mid-dle and Upper Paleolithic (Braidwood and Howe 1960).Later, some of Braidwood’s students, including Hole andFlannery, continued his work, although the corpus ofwell-published Paleolithic research in the region remainsmeager. Hole and Flannery’s research during two seasonsof fieldwork on Paleolithic sites in the KhorramabadValley is summarized in a long article in the Proceedingsof the Prehistoric Society (Hole and Flannery 1967), andPhilip Smith’s excavation in Ghar-i Khar has been pub-lished only in preliminary fashion (Young and Smith1966; Smith 1967, 1986).

Another obstacle to a better understanding of the Ira-nian Paleolithic is the marked disinclination of Iranianarchaeologists—until the 1980s—to participate in thisarea of research. Only the late Enayat Amirloo conductedofficially sanctioned modern-quality research in thisarea, at the Ghale Asgar open-air site in the DemavandValley (Amirloo 1990). However, a number of importantPaleolithic sites were discovered and, in some cases,tested as a consequence of organized surveys conductedunder the aegis of the Iranian Cultural Heritage Orga-nization (ICHO) (Biglari and Abdi 1999, Biglari, Nokan-deh, and Heydari 2000, Biglari 2001, Biglari and Heydari2001). It is our intention here to summarize these diverseefforts and to provide a modern view of Paleolithic re-search in Iran, insofar as it is known.

history of paleolithic research in luristan

Henry Field was perhaps the earliest researcher to iden-tify Paleolithic sites in Luristan. Although he visited theregion prior to World War II, in 1950 he dug a trench inKunji Cave, on the outskirts of the modern city of Khor-

Volume 45, Number 5, December 2004 F 693

Fig. 1. Plan of Ghamari Cave.

ramabad, publishing his results a year later (Field 1951).No subsequent work was accomplished until 1963, whenHole (then at Rice University) and Flannery (Universityof Michigan) identified 17 Paleolithic sites in the Khor-ramabad Valley. Five of these yielded typical Middle Pa-leolithic (Mousterian) artifacts, and the rest consisted ofUpper Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic materials. Over atwo-year period, Hole and Flannery excavated or testedGhamari and Kunji Caves (both Middle Paleolithic [fig.1]), the Gar Arjeneh rockshelter (Middle and Upper Pa-leolithic [fig. 2]), Yafteh Cave (Upper Paleolithic [fig. 3],and the Pasangar rockshelter (Upper and Epipaleolithic).Hole and Flannery (1967:151) saw the Middle Paleolithic

of the region as part of an uninterrupted continuum withthe Upper Paleolithic Baradostian and the EpipaleolithicZarzian. Although the nature of the relationship of theBaradostian to the Aurignacian—supposedly lacking inthe Zagros—has recently been revisited by Olszewski(e.g., 1999, 2001; Olszewski and Dibble 1994), continuityhas been clearly demonstrated for the late Baradostianand the early Zarzian (unit 1) at Warwasi (Olszewski1993b:215). A monograph-length treatment of this earlywork has yet to appear.

In 1969 Charles McBurney (University of Cambridge)excavated four newly discovered rockshelters at high el-evations in the Kuh-i Dasht Mountains of western Khor-

694 F current anthropology

Fig. 2. Plan of the Gar Arjeneh rockshelter.

ramabad (Mir Malas, Barde Spid, Humian I and II). OnlyHumian I yielded (Middle) Paleolithic remains; again,only preliminary notes were published (McBurney1969a, b, 1970). A decade later one of McBurney’s stu-dents, Robert Bewley, used the results obtained from Hu-mian I as the basis for his Ph.D. dissertation (1980), even-tually publishing an account of McBurney’s excavationsin the Kuh-i Dasht area (Bewley 1984). Humian I is animportant Paleolithic site. At 2,000 m above sea level,it is one of the highest Middle Paleolithic sites in westernEurasia (Smith 1986:21) and, arguably, the oldest datedsite in the Zagros.2

The most recent sustained Paleolithic field research

2. There is a single Th/U date on one piece of bone from layer 2aat Humian I: 148,000�35,000 years bp (Bewley 1984:35–38, n. 53).It should be kept in mind that the chronology of the Middle Pa-leolithic in western Asia has changed dramatically over the past20 years. On the basis of thermoluminescence, electron spin res-onance, and uranium-series chronologies from Middle Paleolithicsites in the Levant and Central Asia, the Middle Paleolithic is con-sidered to begin ca. 250,000 years ago and end sometime around40,000 years ago in western Asia (Mercier and Valladas 1994, Davisand Ranov 1999). This agrees with current dates for the EuropeanMousterian and contrasts sharply with the “traditional”Lower–Middle Paleolithic boundary at either 100,000 or 130,000years ago (Middle Upper Pleistocene boundary) (Bar-Yosef 1994).Thus, the Iranian Middle Paleolithic, like that of its neighbors incentral Asia, Turkey, and the Levant, must date to the late MiddlePleistocene. The single date from Humian I is consistent with thisclaim.

in Luristan was undertaken by John Speth as part of hisdoctoral program at the University of Michigan. Duringthe spring and summer of 1969, he excavated a substan-tial surface area in Kunji Cave to study the effect ofactivity loci on what he originally took to be a relativelypristine “living floor,” sampled earlier by Hole and Flan-nery. However, he quickly discovered that most of thesite had been extensively reworked by porcupines, to thepoint that he was forced to change the focus of his re-search (Speth 1971). In the mid-1980s Speth, in collab-oration with Mark Baumler (then at the University ofArizona), reanalyzed the disturbed 1969 collections andthose produced by Hole and Flannery’s 10 # 1-m trenchin what were apparently rare intact deposits (Baumlerand Speth 1993). This effort was part of a number ofrestudies of Luristan Paleolithic collections housed inBritish and American museums that were eventuallymore completely published during the 1980s and 1990s.The early 1960s collections from Kunji were also studiedby James Skinner, who created a typology of SouthwestAsian Middle Paleolithic assemblages as part of his Ph.D.dissertation research (Skinner 1965). During the 1980s,Angela Minzoni-Deroche analyzed partial collectionsfrom Kunji, Gar Arjeneh, Yafteh, and Pasangar in an ef-fort to compare the Zagros Mousterian with that of theTaurus Mountains in Turkey (Minzoni-Deroche 1993,1999).

The most recent of these systematic reanalyses of the


Fig. 3. Plan of Yafteh Cave.

Zagros Mousterian is that of John Lindly (1997), who wasinterested in the effects of seasonal mobility on lithicassemblages at sites at high elevations. After studyingsubstantial portions of collections from seven high-al-titude sites in the Zagros Mountains, he concluded thatthe generally colder environments prevailing there dur-ing the Pleistocene strongly suggested that these sitescould have been occupied only during relatively warmclimatic intervals and even then probably only duringthe summer months. The evidence from the sparse fau-nal remains indicated short and intensive but sporadicuse of these high-altitude caves and rockshelters and apattern of seasonal movement to the highlands during

the summer still seen among pastoralists in the regiontoday (Vahdati Nasab 1999). Tools were repeatedly re-sharpened because raw-material availability and size,coupled with the time constraints of a short summerseason, precluded the manufacture and transport of suf-ficient numbers of flakes to meet demands. Neandertalforagers responded to these constraints with innovativetechnological solutions designed to wring as much us-able cutting edge as possible out of the very limited quan-tities of stone that they could bring with them (Lindly1997, n.d.).


choosing the survey areas

The province of Luristan is located in the central Zagrosand includes a variety of climatically and ecologicallydistinct microenvironments determined mainly by soils,exposure, and elevation. In the east, mountains over4,000 m are the dominant landforms and are character-ized today (at an interglacial maximum) by a mosaic ofgenerally cold environments created by a lattice of in-dividual valleys. Although they are in a precipitationshadow compared with the western Zagros slopes, snow-fall is often heavy there, and snowmelt has importanteffects on the adjacent western and central lowlands,which have milder and drier climates and less of a mosaiccharacter. Our preliminary goals in undertaking our sur-veys were to locate Paleolithic sites and assess their po-tential for further investigation. After studying the ge-ology and geomorphology of the area and taking intoconsideration the present climate, we decided to focusour efforts on the central and southwestern parts of theprovince.3 We selected the Khorramabad Valley in cen-tral Luristan and the Baba Zeid plain, located betweenMalavy and Pol-i Dokhtar in the southwestern part ofthe province. These regions appeared to exhibit thegreatest bioenvironmental potential for foragers, as theycontained numerous caves and rockshelters, easy accessto water, and river valleys that formed natural migrationroutes. The Khorramabad Valley was also the region inwhich Hole and Flannery identified 17 Paleolithic sitesduring their projects in the early 1960s, but, apart fromthe three sites they tested (Kunji, Gar Arjeneh, Ghamari),there is no published information about the remainder,which cannot be located (or relocated) with certainty.

We started with a survey of the southern slopes of theKuh-i Sefid cuesta, where the Upper Paleolithic cave ofYafteh is located, some 13 km to the west of Khorra-mabad (Km 17 on the Khorramabad to Kuh-i Dasht road).Ten sites spanning the Middle Paleolithic to the Epipa-leolithic were located, although only a small part of thevalley was surveyed. The potential for Paleolithic re-search in the region is clearly enormous. The Baba Zeidplain is geomorphologically, topographically, and micro-climatically very different from the Khorramabad Valley.These two regions were selected for their contrastingtopographies, microenvironments, and ecologies with aneye to assessing the possibility of seasonal transhumancebetween them. The Baba Zeid plain is located at thejunction of three convergent valleys that offer naturalroutes to the north, leading to the Zagros highlands, tothe west, in the direction of Islamabad and the Hulailansites, and to the south, toward the Deh Luran plain andthe lowlands of Khuzistan (Hole, Flannery, and Neely1969). Finally, on the basis of local information, we alsobriefly investigated the slopes of Mapel Mountain, about20 km from Khorramabad in the eastern Kuh-i DashtValley. Humian rockshelter, at 2,000 m arguably the

3. In fact, the high elevations in northeastern Luristan (e.g., GarinMountain at 3,700 m, Oshtorankooh and Ghadikooh at 1 4,000 m)precluded any attempt at survey except during the height ofsummer.

highest Middle Paleolithic site in western Eurasia, is lo-cated in the Kuh-i Dasht (Bewley 1984). These three sur-vey regions are distinct from one another environmen-tally and ecologically, primarily as a consequence ofdifferences in elevation. Sites in the Khorramabad Valleyoccur at elevations ranging from 1,200 to 1,400 m; thoseon the Baba Zeid plain are much lower (750–900 m), andthose on Mapel Mountain are all above 1,800 m asl (fig.4). In each survey area, all recognizable lithics were col-lected, including shatter and debitage. At a few sitessuch as Gilvaran I and Sorkh-e Lizeh, where extremelydense lithic scatters occurred, we sampled the scatterssystematically with the aim of obtaining a representativecollection of the full range of stone artifacts.

zagros and luristan paleoclimates

Although Pleistocene paleoclimatic change in the Zagroshas been studied for decades (e.g., de Morgan 1924, 1926,and several publications in Farsi dating back to the nine-teenth century), there is no consensus on the paleocli-matic succession in the region (Brooks 1982). A goodsummary of what was known through the mid-1980s isprovided by Philip Smith (1986:10, 11), and our accountis drawn from it. Many of the data pertain to peripheralregions, and there are differences of opinion as to thesignificance of the single palynological sequence in thearea, that of Lake Zeribar near Mirabad. There are alsodisagreements about whether and to what extent the ev-idence for mountain glaciation can be squared with con-tinental glacial sequences first defined in Europe, al-though these controversies can be resolved to someextent by increasing use of marine paleotemperature corechronologies in the still-unusual situation in which sitescan be dated radiometrically. Small glaciers evidentlyformed during cold intervals in the Zagros Mountainswhen the snow line descended to between 300 and 1,150m below its modern average, but there is no evidencefor ice sheets of any size or description (Wright 1980,Schweizer 1975). There were also montane glaciers inthe Elburz Mountains north of Tehran, but these, too,are poorly understood.

The only relatively credible evidence from the studyarea consists of cores sunk into the sediments of LakesZeribar and Nilofar (1,400 m above sea level) near Mir-abad during the 1960s.4 Published by Herbert Wright(1960, 1961, 1980), the intent of this research was toreconstruct the local flora in the vicinity of Lake Zeribarfrom 42,000 years ago until the present. Wright also drewupon what little was known of the paleoclimatic se-quence in Shanidar Cave, several hundred kilometers tothe northwest of Lake Zeribar but at a significantly lowerelevation (765 m).5 Wright estimated the local expressionof the last glacial maximum in the Zagros at around

4. To the best of our knowledge, the sequence from Lake Nilofarhas never been published.5. The data from Shanidar indicated that the cave was first occupiedduring a warm interval prior to the last glacial maximum and theformation of mountain glacie5rs and ended before the pleniglacialmaximum (ca. 18,000 years ago) (Trinkaus 1983).


Fig. 4. Geological structures, topography, and the distribution of Paleolithic sites in Luristan Province (basedon Broude 1990; Darvish Zadeh 1981; Heydari 1999a, b; Oberlauder 1968; Stocklin 1974, 1981).

20,000 years ago (early oxygen isotope stage 2) and alsoindicated two earlier glacial episodes, one at approxi-mately 75,000–70,000 years ago (stage 4) and the otherat around 50,000 years ago (stage 3 [59,000–24,000 yearsago], regarded as a moderately warm interval [Klein 1999:59]), separated by an interglacial at ca. 60,000 years ago(Wright 1961, Skinner 1965). This temperate episodeprobably falls in stage 3 and has been confirmed by stud-ies of the Humian rockshelter deposits and floral remains(Bewley 1984). Since the appearance of oak (Quercus spp.)in this region is usually taken as a sign of a warm, post-glacial climate, its occurrence in Mousterian levels sug-gests a relatively warm interstadial or interglacial epi-sode. Either or both stage 3 and stage 5 (127,000–71,000years ago) are the most likely candidates, but—given theextended Mousterian chronologies in both Europe andthe Levant—stage 7 (242,000–186,000 years ago) is atleast a possibility.

It should be kept in mind that detailed correlation be-tween continental and marine oxygen isotope chronol-ogies is notoriously difficult. Old radiocarbon dates onsolid samples of wood charcoal from the Lake Zeribar

cores bracket 42,000 and 10,000 years bp. Insofar as theseextremely sparse data can be generalized, it would seemthat steppe landscapes with occasional stands of trees insheltered localities prevailed between roughly 125,000and 42,000 years ago at relatively high elevations (ca.1,400 m) over most of the Zagros chain. Then, between42,000 and 24,000 years ago, the arboreal pollen disap-pears altogether, probably as a consequence of the cold,dry climates characteristic of the last glacial cycle (vanZeist and Bottema 1977) (figs. 5 and 6).

To summarize, overall glacial climates in western,highland Iran were cooler than at present, although thereis no consensus as to how much cooler. Estimates oftemperature depression in the Zagros have varied fromas little as ca. 3–4�C to as much as ca. 10–11�C (Wright1980), while others prefer intermediate figures of ca. 5–6�C (Krinsley 1970, van Zeist and Bottema 1977). Coldintervals were probably somewhat drier than today, andwarm periods probably broadly resembled the present. Itis important to point out that there are contrasting viewsas to the significance of the absence of trees during “gla-cial” episodes. Workers such as van Zeist and Bottema


Fig. 5. Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene climates and vegetation according to van Zeist and Bottema(1977; from Smith 1986: fig. 11, reprinted with the permission of the University of Pennsylvania Museum).

(1977) and Smith (1986) interpret this as reflecting cold,dry conditions (the view taken here), while others (e.g.,Farrand 1981) point to high lake levels in Iran and easternTurkey and montane glaciers on Iranian mountains andconclude from this that cold intervals were also rela-tively humid. In this view, it was the cold and not thearidity that prevented tree growth (Smith 1986:10).

Given its latitude, Iran during the Pleistocene appearsto have been generally semiarid, although its climaticregimen was altered during cold intervals by lower tem-peratures and evaporation rates. Given the disagreementabout the meaning of arboreal pollen just noted, thecooler phases did not necessarily lead to increased veg-etation cover and more abundant animal resources forforagers. In the mountains, at least the summers, whileshort, would have been relatively mild, but, to judge fromCoon’s experiences trying to traverse the Zagros duringthe late fall and winter of 1949, the winters were prob-ably long, severe, extremely cold, and possibly withgreater snowfall than at present (Wright 1976). Lake lev-els were seasonally higher during cool periods becauseof decreased evaporation, while during warm episodesand seasons they probably declined overall. Smaller sea-sonal lakes probably dried up altogether.

the lithic industries

We divided the lithic collections into retouched piecesand debitage, including cores and shatter. Any flake,blade, or bladelet with at least some regular marginalretouch was scored as a retouched piece. Debitage con-sisted of all unretouched flakes, blades, microblades andcores, as well as chipping debris. In an effort to determinerough stages in reduction sequences, we also noted thepresence or absence of cortex on all flakes and bladesand whether or not cores appeared to be exhausted. Thisallowed us to identify (1) a set of Paleolithic and earlyEpipaleolithic industries (Mousterian, Baradostian, orAurignacian, probably Zarzian), found predominantly insites bordering the Khorramabad plain, (2) Late Epipa-leolithic and Proto-Neolithic industries, found on themargins of the Baba Zeid plain, and (3) nondescript flakeindustries, probably mostly Paleolithic, that do not re-semble any Zagros lithic assemblages described in theliterature.

Twenty-one collections ranging in size from a singleartifact (Dozaleh II rockshelter, region 3) to 357 pieces(Gilvaran I, region 1) were recovered. Although in nosense representative because of obvious factors of selec-tion (e.g., slope wash, erosion in general, etc.) and heavily


Fig. 6. A synthesis of the Iranian Paleolithic. Chronological subdivisions are not to scale and positions of indi-vidual sites within units are only approximate (from Smith 1986: fig. 15, reprinted with the permission of theUniversity of Pennsylvania Museum).

dominated by large flakes, blades, and cores, the collec-tions nevertheless give a preliminary idea of the richnessof the Stone Age archaeological record in the IranianZagros and provide a much-needed update on the dec-ades-old research that has been reported in Westernliteratures.

The small Mousterian collection (15 pieces) fromGachi rockshelter is perhaps the most informative ofthose assigned to the Middle Paleolithic. It produced nofewer than six sidescrapers (single, double and conver-gent), a Mousterian point, and an exhausted disk core(fig. 7). Moreover, the pieces are textbook examples andheavily reduced and thus tend to support Lindly’s con-clusion that the region was occupied only seasonally dur-ing the Mousterian and that hominids were bringing rel-atively large, easily modified flake and blade tools andcores into the highlands and subsequently reworkingthem as circumstances required (Lindly 1997). There are

no suggestions of primary reduction in the Gachi surfacecollection.

Other collections are assigned to an undifferentiatedUpper and/or Epipaleolithic because pieces such as Ar-jeneh points, keeled or carinate endscrapers, and Dufourbladelets, supposedly diagnostic of the Baradostian orZagros Aurignacian (more generally, early Upper Paleo-lithic), do not occur in them. Typical Zarzian pieces arealso lacking (e.g., geometric microliths, small burins).The two large collections from Sorkh-e Lizeh and Gil-varan I exhibit some generic Early Upper Paleolithiccharacteristics (e.g., many flakes, retouched pieces madeon flakes, flake cores, denticulates and notches, sides-crapers), but they occur along with lamellar elementsand even bullet cores (figs. 8 and 9). Sidescrapers,notches, denticulates, and retouched flakes predominatein early Upper Paleolithic layers AA–LL at Warwasi (Ol-szewski and Dibble 1994). Hammerstones and grinding


Fig. 7. Gachi rockshelter, selected pieces. 1, Mousterian point; 2 and 3, convergent sidescrapers; 4, dejete sides-craper; 5, notched flake; 6, convex sidescraper; 7, disk core.

stones were reported by Hole and Flannery (1967) fromtheir tests at Gar Arjeneh and also show up at GilvaranI but are of uncertain chronological or diagnostic signif-icance. Judging from the dates from Yafteh, the earlyUpper Paleolithic in the region would seem to fall be-tween 40,000 and 30,000 years ago (Hole and Flannery1967).

Distinctive Zarzian diagnostics such as geometricsand other retouched microblades were not recovered inany of the survey collections, and the most likely can-didate for a Zarzian site (probably Ab Zadeh Cave inregion 1) must await testing to confirm its culture-strat-igraphic affinity. All assessments of Zarzian affinitymust rest upon comparisons with Olszewski’s compre-hensive study of the Warwasi rockshelter, which con-tains a long Zarzian sequence (1993b). Three sites (Gil-varan I and II and Sorkh-e Lizeh) can plausibly beassigned to the Baradostian (Solecki 1958, 1963) or, as itis increasingly called, the Zagros Aurignacian (Ol-szewski 1993a, 1999, 2001; Olszewski and Dibble 1994),but the remaining five can only be reasonably claimedto be Upper and/or Epipaleolithic.6

An apparently later group of samples includes those

6. On the basis of textbook generalizations about these industriesin highland western Asia.

from Takht-e Shir I and II and Vare Zard. Although oneis from a rockshelter and the other from an adjacentopen-air site, the two Takht-e Shir collections are verysimilar to one another, probably represent the same in-terval of time, and are almost certainly part of a single“site.” They consist mostly of small lamellar elements,blade and bladelet cores (fig. 10). To judge from their sizeand neatly parallel lamellar detachments, pressure flak-ing was used to detach the microblades. Although nobullet cores were recovered, two blades with silica glosson them imply plant processing and perhaps signal anEpipaleolithic or Proto-Neolithic component. The VareZard collection is also dominated by lamellar elementsand includes drills, endscrapers made on blades, and bul-let cores, all of which are characteristic of the ZagrosNeolithic (fig. 11 [Kozlowski 1999]).

The third group of collections is dominated by non-descript chert flakes and flake cores recovered from fourrockshelters and a cave on the margins of the Baba Zeidplain (region 2). These pieces generally represent simplepercussion detachments from unprepared or minimallyprepared cores, as indicated by the presence of corticalmaterial on some of the platforms and on the dorsal facesof the flakes themselves. Technically, the latter wouldbe considered primary or (mostly) secondary decortica-


Fig. 8. Sorkh-e Lizeh, selected artifacts. 1, cortical bladelet; 2, backed and truncated bladelet; 3, backed bla-delet with inverse retouch; 4, flake with lateral retouch on both edges; 5, flake with inverse retouch; 6, unreto-uched blade; 7, denticulated blade; 8, plain blade; 9, notched flake; 10, multiple dihedral burin on a break; 11,double endscraper; 12, endscraper on a flake; 13, combination endscraper-sidescraper; 14, blade/bladelet core;15, bullet core.

tion flakes (fig. 12). Retouched pieces are rare, and muchof what could—by some stretch of the imagination—beconsidered retouch was likely produced simply by useof unretouched edges. The general impression is one ofan expedient technology in which flakes were being de-tached for more or less immediate use, primarily as un-modified cutting tools. Lamellar technology is absentfrom these collections, although they likely represent a“structural pose” (Binford 1980) of a wider range of lithicreduction systems other aspects of which were directedtoward the production of blades and bladelets. They can-not be dated, although a test at the most promising ofthese sites, Dar Eshkaft Cave, might allow us to do soor at least to put them into a more precise behavioralcontext.

conclusions

With many potentially informative sites, adequate wa-ter, easily exploited plants and animals of known im-portance to foragers throughout the Middle and UpperPleistocene, and a climate suitable for humans in at leastsome places, the province clearly was an attractive placefor hunter-gatherers during the warm intervals in theQuaternary. The discovery of 21 sites, many with burieddeposits, in the course of a very brief archaeological sur-vey underscores the potential of the region for prehistoricinvestigations of all kinds but especially those bearingon the Middle and Upper Paleolithic and the biologicaland behavioral transitions between archaic and modern


Fig. 9. Tang-e Barik I, selected artifacts. 1, retouched bladelet; 2, unretouched bladelet; 3, partially backedbladelet; 4, inversely retouched blade; 5, inversely retouched notched blade; 6 and 7, unretouched bladelets; 8,partially retouched flake; 9, flake endscraper; 10, multiple burin; 11 and 13, single platform bladelet cores; 12,polyhedric-carinate burin; 14 and 15, multiple platform flake cores.


Fig. 10. Takht-e Shir, selected artifacts. 1, plain flake; 2, sickle blade segment; 3, truncated sickle blade seg-ment; 4, 7–9, bladelet cores; 5, flake struck from a bladelet core; 6, retouched blade segment.

Homo sapiens. The work reported here produced fivesubstantive results.

First, we were able to test the idea that different geo-logical zones of the Zagros were characterized by differ-ent kinds of sites. Region 1 (Khorramabad), located onthe boundary between the Zagros thrust and the Zagrosfolded zone, is characterized by high mountain rangeswith steep escarpments surrounding the Khorramabadplain, and most of its sites have formed at the base ofthe limestone cliffs abutting the margins of the plain inthe thrust zone. Big caves such as Ghamari, Kunji, andYafteh are more or less confined to this region. Region2 (Baba Zeid) is located near the center of the folded zone.Its plains are not as extensive as those of region 1, andthe landscape is one of lower relief, with fewer cliffs andescarpments. Most of its sites are relatively small com-pared with those in region 1, are found in small side

valleys that do not have direct access to the Baba Zeidplain, and date to later (i.e., post-Paleolithic) periods. Forthe Khorramabad sample, the ratio of Upper to MiddlePaleolithic sites is similar to that proposed by Hole andFlannery (1967) for the same region (70.6%), and thiscould be taken to indicate denser Upper Paleolithic set-tlement than was typical of the Mousterian. This sug-gestion squares well with patterns detected in other partsof the Zagros such as the Marv Dasht region (Rosenberg1988), the Hulailen Valley (Mortensen 1993), Izeh, inKhuzistan (Wright, 1979), and the plains of Kermanshah(Biglari and Heydari 2001). Although it clearly would bepremature to ascribe a cause to this apparent increase insite frequency, more intensive land use by Upper Pale-olithic foragers with improved technologies and livingat higher population densities than their Middle Paleo-


Fig. 11. Vare Zard, selected artifacts. 1, unretouched bladelet; 2, notched bladelet; 3, blade segment; 4,notched blade; 5, blade endscraper; 6, borer; 7, unretouched blade; 8, used blade; 9, flake with continuous re-touch along two edges; 10, denticulated flake; 11, notch/sidescraper; 12 and 16, single-platform bladelet cores;13 and 15, bullet cores; 14, mixed flake/blade core.


Fig. 12. Tool Kash I, selected artifacts. 1, burin: 2, secondary decortication flake; 3, denticulated flake; 4, in-verse sidescraper; 5, disk core (exhausted).

lithic predecessors could be a factor. Climatic change isunlikely to have played a major role.

Second, we were able to show that there are significantdifferences in contexts between Middle Paleolithic sitesand Upper Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic ones. All theMiddle Paleolithic sites in region 1 except for Gar Ar-jeneh are in large rockshelters and caves, whereas all theUpper Paleolithic sites in the region except for Yaftehare in rockshelters. While we hesitate to propose an ex-planation for this pattern, it is probably linked to thekinds of solution cavities available before and after ca.40,000 years ago.

A third result was the recognition of previously un-known flake industries in the area surrounding the BabaZeid plain. Although a functional explanation appearslikely in the absence of any relative or absolute chro-nology, it is nevertheless true that no similar industrieshave been described for any Paleolithic period in the Zag-ros. A similar assemblage has, however, recently beenreported from rockshelter deposits near Islamabad, some150 km northwest of the Baba Zeid plain (Abdi 1999 andBiglari’s observations). Islamabad is located in the Zagrosfolded zone, and Abdi notes a remarkable consistency ofraw material (brown and reddish brown chert nodules)across all these sites, so far undated.

A fourth finding is the so-far unique Vare Zard sitecomplex, a series of rockshelters cut into a cliff face with

a scatter of Epipaleolithic and Proto-Neolithic artifactsextending for more than 200 m along the slope in frontof it. The sheer extent of the scatter suggests repeateduse of the location over a substantial interval in the earlyHolocene in a setting quite distinct from that of the pe-necontemporaneous Belt and Hotu Caves along the shoreof the Caspian Sea, several hundred kilometers to thenortheast (Coon 1957). Although there are no indicationsthat all or most of the Vare Zard shelters were occupiedsimultaneously, the numerous projections between therelatively shallow shelters would have facilitated theconstruction of tents, ramadas, or lean-tos that couldhave sheltered a group in excess of 100 individuals. Thenear certainty of buried deposits at the site augurs wellfor future excavations.

Finally, important paleoclimatic evidence came froma pothole at the Gachi rockshelter, our best candidatefor a Mousterian site with buried deposits. Two stratawere exposed in a section measuring ca. 90 cm deep. Theuppermost level (ca. 40 m deep) consisted of a flowstonedeposit incorporating cryoclastic debris that overlies thecultural layers and may eventually provide a terminusante quem uranium-series date for the Mousterian de-posits underneath. Flowstones are common features ofactive karstic systems and usually form at some distancefrom the cave mouth, which implies that the shelteroverhang once extended outward some meters from its


present location. The precipitation of calcium carbonatesthat results in flowstone deposits also must have takenplace under a hydrologic regime that was considerablywetter than that of today. An analogous situation occursat Shanidar Cave, in Iraqi Kurdistan, some 250 km tothe northwest (Solecki 1961, 1971). There a thin flow-stone deposit was uncovered in Mousterian layer D at adepth of ca. 8.5 m below the modern cave floor. Longbefore the advent of oxygen-isotope-based marine paleo-temperature chronologies (which he himself pioneered),Robert Emiliani assumed that this layer corresponded toWurm I in the European continental glacial sequence,which at the time implied an age of ca. 60,000 years ago(Solecki 1961).7 Pointing to pollen and sediment evidencefrom the Humian rockshelter, Bewley (1980, 1984) alsomaintains that the Zagros Mousterian developed underwarm, humid conditions contemporary with the flow-stone deposit at Shanidar. If the flowstone deposit atGachi could be shown to be contemporaneous with thetravertines at Shanidar and Humian, it would imply thatthe Mousterian at Gachi also dates to a warm, wet periodca. 60,000 years ago (in modern terms, early in oxygenisotope stage 3). Whatever the case, it might be possibleto date the flowstone directly and thus provide the be-ginnings of a radiometric chronology for the region.

References Citeda b d i , k . 1999. Archaeological research on the Islamabad plain:

Preliminary report, 1998 and 1999 (in Farsi). Iranian Journal ofArchaeology and History 26/27:47–60.

a m i r l o o , e . 1990. Archeological survey of the Demavand re-gion (in Farsi). Iranian Journal of Archaeology and History 7:78–79.

b a r - y o s e f , o . 1994. The Lower Paleolithic of the Near East.Journal of World Prehistory 8:211–65.

b a u m l e r , m . , a n d j . d . s p e t h . 1993. “A Middle Paleo-lithic assemblage from Kunji Cave, Iran,” in The Paleolithicprehistory of the Zagros-Taurus. Edited by D. Olszewski andH. Dibble, pp. 1–73. Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaMuseum.

b e w l e y, r . h . 1980. Houmian, Iran. M.Phil. thesis, Depart-ment of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge,U.K.

———. 1984. The Cambridge University Archaeological Expedi-tion to Iran, 1969. Excavations in the Zagros Mountains,Houmian, Mir Malas, and Barde Spid. Iran 22:1–38.

b i g l a r i , f . 2000. Lithic analysis of artifacts from the LuristanPaleolithic Survey, winter 2000. MS, Institute of Archaeology,Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization, Tehran, Iran.

———. 2001. Report on newly discovered Paleolithic sites at Bis-itun, central-western Iran (in Farsi). Journal of Archaeologyand History 28:50–60.

b i g l a r i , f . , a n d k . a b d i . 1999. Paleolithic artifacts fromCham-e Souran, the Islamabad Plain, central-western ZagrosMountains, Iran. Archaologische Mitteilungen aus Iran undTaurus 31:1–8.

b i g l a r i , f . , a n d s . h e y d a r i . 2001. Do-Ashkaft: A recentlydiscovered Mousterian cave site in the Kermanshah Plain, Iran.Antiquity 75:487–88.

b i g l a r i , f . , g . n o k a n d e h , a n d s . h e y d a r i . 2000. A re-

7. Although probably impractical because of the unsettled politicalsituation, it would be very useful to go back to Shanidar and tryto recover a sample of this flowstone for uranium-series dating.

cent find of a Paleolithic assemblage from the foothills of theZagros Mountains. Antiquity 74:749–50.

b i n f o r d , l . 1980. Willow smoke and dogs’ tails: Hunter-gath-erer settlement systems and archaeological site formation.American Antiquity 45:4–20.

b r a i d w o o d , r . j . 1960. Seeking the world’s first farmers inPersian Kurdistan: A full-scale investigation of prehistoric sitesnear Kermanshah. Illustrated London News 237:695–97.

b r a i d w o o d , r . j . , a n d b . h o w e . 1960. Prehistoric investi-gations in Iraqi Kurdistan. Oriental Institute, University ofChicago, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 31.

b ro o k s , i . a . 1982. “Geomorphological evidence for climatechange in Iran during the last 20,000 years,” in Paleoclimates,paleoenvironments, and human communities in the EasternMediterranean region in later prehistory, pt. 1. Edited by J. L.Bintliff and W. van Zeist, pp. 191–228. British ArchaeologicalReports International Series 133.

b ro u d e , j . 1990. Geological map of Bakhtaran (Kermanshah).Translated by A. Agha Nabati. Tehran: Iranian GeologicalOrganization.

c o o n , c . s . 1951. Cave explorations in Iran 1949. Philadel-phia: University of Pennsylvania Museum.

———. 1957. The seven caves: Archaeological explorations inthe Middle East. New York: Alfred Knopf.

d a rv i s h z a d e h , a . 1981. Geology of Iran. Tehran: Danesh-eEmroos Publishers.

d a v i s , r . , a n d v. r a n o v. 1999 Recent work on the Paleo-lithic of Central Asia. Evolutionary Anthropology 8:186–93.

d i b b l e , h . , a n d s . h o l d a w a y. 1993. “The Middle Paleo-lithic industries of Warwasi,” in The Paleolithic prehistory ofthe Zagros-Taurus. Edited by D. Olszewski and H. Dibble, pp.75–100. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum.

f a r r a n d , w. 1981. “Pluvial climates and frost action duringthe last glacial cycle in the eastern Mediterranean: Evidencefrom archaeological sites,” in Quaternary paleoclimate. Editedby W. C. Mahaney, pp. 393–409. Norwich: GeoAbstracts.

fi e l d , h . 1951. Reconnaissance in southwestern Asia. South-western Journal of Anthropology 7:86–102.

h e y d a r i , s . 1999a. Geoarchaeology of Paleolithic sites in theSouthwestern Prave Mountains (Kermanshah Region) and astudy of the paleoclimate at the end of the Quaternary. M.A.thesis, Department of Geology, Islamic Azad University at Na-jaf-Abad, Tehran, Iran.

———. 1999b. A study of the paleoclimate and its relationshipwith the Paleolithic sites in Luristan Province. MS, Institute ofArchaeology, Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization, Tehran,Iran.

h o l e f . , a n d k . fl a n n e ry. 1967. The prehistory of south-western Iran: A preliminary report. Proceedings of the Prehis-toric Society 33:147–206.

h o l e , f . , k . fl a n n e ry, a n d j . n e e l e y. 1969. Prehistoryand human ecology of the Deh Luran Plain. Memoirs of theMuseum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, 1.

k l e i n , r . 1999. The human career: Human biological and cul-tural origins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

k o z l o w s k i , s . 1999. The eastern wing of the Fertile Crescent:Late prehistory of Greater Mesopotamian lithic industries.British Archaeological Reports International Series 760.

k r i n s l e y, d . 1970. A geomorphological and paleoclimatologi-cal study of the playas of Iran. 2 pts. Washington, D.C.: AirForce Cambridge Research Laboratories.

l i n d l y, j . 1997. The Zagros Mousterian: A regional perspec-tive. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.

———. n.d. The Zagros Mousterian: A regional perspective. Ari-zona State University Anthropological Research Papers 57. Inpress.

m c b u r n e y, c . 1969a. On an examination of rock paintings inthe Kuh-i Dasht area. Bastan Shenasi Va Honar-e Iran 3:7–8.

———. 1969b. Report on further excavations in the caves of theKuh-i Dasht area during August, 1969. Bastan Shenasi VaHonar-e Iran 3:8–9.

———. 1970. Paleolithic excavations in the Zagros Mountains.Iran 8:185–86.


m e r c i e r , n . , a n d h . v a l l a d a s . 1994. “Thermolumines-cence dates for the Paleolithic Levant,” in Late Quaternarychronology and paleoclimates of the Eastern Mediterranean.Edited by O. Bar-Yosef and R. Kra, pp. 13–20. Tucson: Radio-carbon, Inc.

m i n z o n i - d e ro c h e , a . 1993. “Middle and Upper Paleolithicof the Taurus-Zagros region,” in The Paleolithic prehistory ofthe Zagros-Taurus. Edited by D. Olszewski and H. Dibble, pp.147–58. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum.

———. 1999. The Middle and Upper Paleolithic periods in theTaurus-Zagros region. Translated by F. Biglari. Journal of Ar-chaeology Students in Tehran University 11:19–24.

m o r g a n , j . d e 1924. Le monde oriental avant l’histoire:L’Asie anterieure et l’Egypte. L’Anthropologie 34:17–56.

———. 1926. La prehistoire orientale. 2 vols. Paris: Masson.m o r t e n s e n , p . 1993. “Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic sites in

the Holailan Valley, northern Luristan,” in The Paleolithic pre-history of the Zagros-Taurus. Edited by D. Olszewski and H.Dibble, pp. 159–86. Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaMuseum.

o b e r l a n d e r , t . m . 1968. “The origin of the Zagros defiles,”in The Cambridge history of Iran, vol. 1. Edited by W. B.Fisher, pp. 195–211. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

o l s z e w s k i , d . i . 1993a. “The late Baradostian occupation atWarwasi rockshelter, Iran,” in The Paleolithic prehistory of theZagros-Taurus. Edited by D. Olszewski and H. Dibble, pp.187–206. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum.

———. 1993b. “The Zarzian occupation at Warwasi rockshelter,Iran,” in The Paleolithic prehistory of the Zagros-Taurus. Ed-ited by D. Olszewski and H. Dibble, pp. 207–36. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Museum.

———. 1999. “The early Upper Paleolithic in the Zagros Moun-tains,” in Dorothy Garrod and the progress of the Palaeolithic.Edited by W. Davies and R. Charles, pp. 167–80. Oxford: Ox-bow Books.

———. 2001. “Ruminations on the Early Upper Paleolithic and aconsideration of the Zagros Aurignacian,” in Questioning theanswers: Re-solving fundamental problems of the Early UpperPaleolithic. Edited by M. Hays and P. Thacker, pp. 79–90. Brit-ish Archaeological Reports International Series 1005.

o l s z e w s k i , d . , a n d h . d i b b l e . 1994. The Zagros Aurigna-cian. current anthropology 35:68–75.

ro s e n b e r g , m . 1988. Paleolithic settlement patterns in theMarv Dasht, Fars Province, Iran. Ann Arbor: UniversityMicrofilms.

ro u s t a e i . k . 1999. Studying and documenting caves, rock-shelters, and open Paleolithic sites in Luristan Province. MS,Institute of Archaeology, Iranian Cultural Heritage Organiza-tion, Tehran, Iran.

s c h w e i z e r , g . 1975. Untersuchungen zur Physiogeographie

von Ostanatolien und Nordwestiran. Tubingen: Geogra-phischen Instituts der Universitat Tubingen.

s k i n n e r , j . 1965. The flake industries of Southwest Asia: Atypological study. Ph.D. diss. Columbia University, New York,N.Y.

s m i t h , p . e . l . 1967. Ghari Khar and Ganj-i Dareh. Iran 5:138–39.

———. 1986. Paleolithic archaeology in Iran. (American Instituteof Iranian Studies, Monograph 1.) Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Museum.

s o l e c k i , r . s . 1958. The Baradostian industry and the UpperPalaeolithic of the Near East. Ph.D. diss., Columbia Univer-sity. New York, N.Y.

———. 1961. Three adult Neanderthal skeletons from ShanidarCave, northern Iraq. Sumer 17:71–94.

———. 1963. Prehistory of the Shanidar Valley. Science 139:189–93.

———. 1971. Shanidar: The first flower people. New York: AlfredKnopf.

s p e t h , j . 1971. Kunji Cave. Iran 9:172–73.s t o c k l i n , j . 1974. “Possible ancient continental margins in

Iran,” in The geology of continental margins. Edited by C.Burk and C. Drake, pp. 873–87. New York: Springer-Verlag.

———. 1981. “A brief report on geodynamics in Iran,” in Zagros-Hindu Kush-Himalaya geodynamic evolution. Edited by H. K.Gupta and F. Delany, pp. 70–73. Boulder: Geological Society ofAmerica.

t r i n k a u s , e . 1983. The Shanidar Neandertals. New York: Ac-ademic Press.

v a h d a t i n a s a b , h . 1999. Paleobiology and animal distribu-tions associated with Paleolithic sites in Luristan Province.MS, Institute of Archaeology, Iranian Cultural Heritage Organi-zation, Tehran, Iran.

v a n z e i s t , w. , a n d s . b o t t e m a . 1977. Palynological in-vestigations in western Iran. Palaeohistoria 19:19–85.

w r i g h t , h . e . , j r . 1960. “Climate and prehistoric man in theeastern Mediterranean,” in Prehistoric investigations in IraqiKurdistan. Edited by R. Braidwood and B. Howe, pp. 71–95.Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, Studies in AncientOriental Civilization 31.

———. 1961. Pleistocene glaciation in Kurdistan. Eiszeitalterund Gegenwart 12:131–64.

———. 1976. The environmental setting for plant domesticationin the Near East. Science 194:385–89.

———. 1980. Climatic change and plant domestication in theZagros Mountains. Iran 18:145–48.

w r i g h t , h . t . 1979. Archaeological investigations in North-eastern Xuzestan. Museum of Anthropology, University ofMichigan, Research Reports in Archaeology 10.

y o u n g , t . c . , a n d p . e . l . s m i t h . 1966. Research in theprehistory of central-western Iran. Science 153:386–91.

Recent Paleolithic Surveys in Luristan

Documents

Transcript of Recent Paleolithic Surveys in Luristan