Материал: Aratashen_mélanges Burney_2004

6

These two categories of pottery are found on several sites of the Ararat plain where surface collection has been carried out or trial trenches excavated: Mashtotsi-blur, Ada-blur, Shengavit I…, generally considered to belong to the Chalcolithic.

The pottery produced by the ruined and displaced Horizon “0” thus appears to date to the end of the fifth and the first half of the fourth millennium, a period in which the plain of Ararat was clearly in contact with the contemporary populations of northern Mesopotamia, and also with those of the “Sioni culture” of the Kura basin. Thus, the three levels of the blur should be placed before the late phase of the regional Chalcolithic; taking into account the existence of an aceramic phase (Level III), we cannot exclude that the Aratashen sequence began in the Neolithic.

Architecture

There does not appear to be continuity in the successive architectural traditions observable in the three identified archaeological horizons on the site. This would seem to be in opposition to the remarkable homogeneity of the lithic and bone industries over the whole of the occupation layer, which gives the impression of the development of successive phases of the same culture.

At first sight, the type of architecture which developed in the lower horizon (III) at first sight would appear to evoke that of the Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture by the circular form of the buildings and their arrangement. But owing to the limited exposure of structure at Aratashen, some caution is necessary. In fact, they are too small to be considered true houses at present. At Shulaveri, units of round habitations appear in the first phase of occupation, and continue to the latest phase (V) of the culture. They are characterised by the use of planoconvex mud bricks arranged in corbelled construction which form domed roofs; in phase III appear "complexes" of buildings joined by little curved walls around closed courtyards. Not until phase V does a rectangular plan appear as well as semi-buried huts, which develop in the following period (Sioni culture).6 At Aratashen, the construction technique is different: the plano-convex brick was unknown here and the inhabitants of Level III used pisé like their neighbours in southern Transcaucasia (Kül Tepe of Nakhichevan) and the northern Near East (Hajji Firuz, lower levels; Dalma Tepe; Tilki Tepe).7

The fragments of crude mud brick, which appear in the intermediate horizon (Level II) of Aratashen, at the same time as the pottery, indicate an important change in the construction techniques. These mud bricks do not have a rounded upper surface and therefore do not belong to the Kura basin tradition, but again to that of southeastern Transcaucasia (Alikemek Tepesi) or the northern Near East (Hajji Firuz, upper levels).8 In this level II, the absence of any constructed walls and of any floor plan suggests that the excavated zone, which is very rich in objects, corresponds to an activity zone outside the habitations.

The large circular mud brick buildings (4 to 5 m in diameter) of the standard module of the upper horizon at Aratashen (Level I), which appear to be near a rectangular construction, evoke Nakhichevan and the steppes of Azerbaijan, the only regions of Transcaucasia where circular and rectangular buildings in parallelepipedic mud bricks coexist. At Kül Tepe, the buildings are raised in the Halaf levels and later9; at Ilanly Tepe (Karabakh steppe) or Alikemek Tepesi (Mugan steppe), they belong to the latest phase of the

6Kiguradze 1976, p.157-164.

7Kül Tepe of Nakhichevan, Abibullaev 1963, pp. 157-158 ; Hajji Firuz, Voigt 1983, p.31-33; Damla Tepe, Hamlin 1975, p.113; Tilki Tepe, Korfmann 1982, p.31.

8Alikemek Tepesi, Narimanov 1987, pp. 58-59 ; Hajji Firuz, Voight 1983, pp. 31-33.

9Abibullaev 1963, p.157.

7

Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture.10 In the northern Near East, this preponderance of the circular plan over the rectangular is consistent with the Halaf period, but the layout of the buildings is quite different (round tholos type with rectilinear chambers attached to them) as well as the construction technique (pisé, often with stone wall foundations) (for example : Girikihaciyan.11

Bone industry

The three levels of Aratashen are characterised by a rich bone industry, apparently quite homogenous throughout the layer (Figure 6). It consists mainly of awls, drills and punches of various sizes, clearly from ovicaprine or bird bones; these are made either from simple slivers of long bones, or from larger bone segments having part or all of the epiphysis, in order to facilitate grasping (Figure 9). Frequently found scattered throughout the three levels are tools made from a goat horn or the pointed extremity of an antler, which usually have a hole for the handle in their proximal part; these are probably agricultural tools of dibble type. The intermediate horizon (level II)—the richest in bone industry—has also produced “hammers” of antler, which also have a hole for the handle perpendicular to the axis, as well as large “palettes”, carved in deer scapulae and sometimes decorated with grooves. More finely carved spoons from long bones as well as tubular objects are more characteristic of the earliest horizon (Level III). As a whole, this industry appears to be part of the tradition of working bone and horn widespread throughout the northern Near East during the seventh and sixth millennia.

On most of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites of Transcaucasia and the Near East, one finds objects in bone, horn and antler which are piercing tools (punches, awls, needles…), burnishing tools and spatulas in bone, intended for working fur and skins. But some sites have produced a large variety of these objects, including as at Aratashen spoons and palettes, as well as tools intended for working the earth (hoes, dibbles). The neighbouring site of Tilki Tepe on the southeastern bank of Lake Van is an example. Level III, of the Halaf period, produced many tools, often similar to those of Aratashen, consisting of “hammers” with a hole for the handle perpendicular to the axis of the tool, large palettes (ibid., fig. 17.3-5), here carved in ox scapulae, little spoons (ibid., fig. 18.12) of which the extremity of the handle is pierced by a hole, spatulas with the extremities sometimes pierced), fine tubes from bird bones, etc.12

In the Kura basin, the objects in bone and antler flourished throughout the ShulaveriShomutepe culture, reaching a peak in the last phases13; however, the Sioni culture, which was the local successor, is characterised by the almost total disappearance of these objects14. At Shulaveri-Shomutepe, the fine spoons are present from phase I onwards and the large “palettes” made from ox scapulae appear in phase IV. In eastern and southern Transcaucasia only the fine spoons are represented and they are rare: one example at Ilanly Tepe, in the Krabakh steppe and anothet at Kül Tepe in Nakhichevan.15 However these objects, spoons and palettes, are a part of a common savoir-faire throughout the Near East in the horizon of the seventh and sixth millennia, They are found in the Zagros at Jarmo (fifteen spoons, with long and short handles, found in the upper levels with pottery, in Anatolia at Catal Hüyük in levels IV-II (spoons and palettes), as well as near the Sea of Marmara at Ilpinar (the occupation of

10Narimanov 1987, p.48-49 and 57-60.

11Watson, Le Blanc 1990, p.39.

12Korfmann 1982, fig. 11.4, 15.6-7, 17.2-5 and 18.12.

13Kiguradze 1976, p.163-165.

14Dzhaparidze, 1989, p. 340.

15Ilanly Tepe, Narimanov, 1987, fig. 43 ; Kül Tepe of Nakhichevan, Narimanov, 1987, fig. 57.

8

the first half of the sixth millennium produced 77 spoons, fabricated from long bones and ribs)16i. At Hacilar, in the levels with pottery, bone spatulas with decorated handles were found, but the spoons themselves are in clay.17

A tool characteristic of the levels of Aratashen, as we have seen, is the “dibble”, made from a goat horn or an antler, sharpened and worked to receive a handle. This type of instrument is widespread in Transcaucasia, in particular in western Georgia (Samele Kldé level II), as well as in the Lake Van Basin (Tilki Tepe level III).18 However, the “hoes” made of antler (from the bony base and the beginning of the sectioned branch), so characteristic of the Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture where they appear from phase I and develop continuously until phase V, are totally absent from Aratashen; they are very rare too in southern Transcaucasia (Kül Tepe of Nakhichevan).19

Lithic industry

The entire lithic industry of Aratashen is in obsidian, and is abundant (so far nearly 8400 artifacts) (Figure 7). Chemical analyses carried out on ten pieces collected on the surface of the site show that there were various sources (Table). Four mountain ranges, situated on the periphery of the Ararat plain, were exploited (map): Arteni to the west (70%), Guansar to the north (ca. 17%), Ararat to the south and Geghasar to the northeast (8%). All the sources are situated within a radius of 70 km. The first three are easily accessible, as the obsidian outcrops are in contact with the plain; the Geghasar flows, however, are found on the high plateaux (between 2500 and 3000 m) which are free of snow only in summer.

According to J. Chabot, who is studying the lithic tools of Aratashen, they are characterised by a debitage which is almost exclusively for blades; the flakes discovered are so far rare (6% of the total number of artifacts) and only three have been transformed into tools by retouch20. A number of these blades are fragmented and come to us in the form of mesial and proximal segments; this fragmentation was apparently voluntary and probably related to the way these tools were used. This industry is in general one of quality, but there is no observable technological or typological development over the whole sequence of occupation. These tools, obtained mainly by indirect percussion and by crutch pressure, are clearly characteristic of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultures throughout Transcaucasia and the northern Near East. In Transcaucasia (Imeretia, Kura and Araxes basins), debitage for blades generally characterises the Neolithic phase. The transition to the Chalcolithic is usually accompanied by the development of flake industries, and that to the Bronze Age by a general decadence of the lithic tools; this is clearly the case for the Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture where flake debitage becomes significant in phase IV, and predominant in phase V.

Pottery

Totally absent from the first habitation level (III), pottery appears at Aratashen in level II, which produced some twenty sherds and a complete vase. This low quantity imposes caution in the determination of the origin of the pottery which penetrated into the Ararat plain. In the material of Aratashen, several sherds with an average brown-orange paste with a brown-gray heart have chopped straw as filler. One of these (AR99.016.002) is a fragment of a jar with a large flaring neck. The only complete form (AR99.016.001), a little ridged bowl

16Jarmo, Watson 1983, p. 353-354 and fig. 144, 14-19 ; Catal Hüyük, Mellaart 1971, fig. 102 ; Ilipinar, Roodenberg,1995, p. 127-128 and fig. 6.

17Mellaart, 1970, p. 162 and fig. 180-181.

18Samele Kldé, Dzhaparidze 1989, fig. 64-65 ; Tilki Tepe, Korfmann, 1982, fig. 15.

19Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture, Kiguradze, 1976, pp. 160-165 ; Kül Tepe, Abibullaev 1959,

p.161.

20Chabot in press.

9

with a rounded lip, about 5 cm high, is in crude clay with a mineral filler (sand, gravel); its irregular sides are light brown with traces of charring. This simultaneous presence of plant filler and mineral filler is attested in the northern Near East from the second half of the seventh millenium; in this period the ridged forms are characteristic of the proto-Hassuna sites of northeastern Mesopotamia21.

In the absence of detailed similarities between a material which is rare at Aratashen and pottery from the other regions, we can only concentrate on the differences which enable exclusion of direct influence of this or that region on the appearance of pottery in the plain of Ararat. Thus the pottery of levels II-I of Aratashen has nothing in common with that of western Georgia, or with that that of the Kura basin. The regions of the upper Tigris-upper Euphrates should also be dismissed, as the brown pottery with mineral filler decorated with incised strips and protuberances, which develops at Cayönü, then in the Keban (Norsun Tepe), is unknown at Aratashen22. Neither is the red-slipped pottery which develops rapidly at the end of the seventh and during the sixth and fifth millennia in northeastern Mesopotamia and in the basin of Lake Urmia represented.

Conclusion

In his pioneering work on Transcaucasia, C. Burney stresses the scarcity of pre-Bronze Age remains discovered in the plain of Ararat, the only available data coming from exploratory trenches and surface collection23. Thirty years later, the situation has hardly changed: a single site, Tekhut, has been excavated, and all the general works on the region emphasize the lack of knowledge of the cultural phases which preceded the Kuro-Arax culture24.

The new excavation of Aratashen, which seeks to fill this gap, has produced preliminary results which are very encouraging. The land works and natural erosion which have affected the upper part of the site have resulted in a difference in preservation of the two phases of occupation: (1) the late Chalcolithic in the trial trenches near the river Kasakh; (2) the early Chalcolithic (and the Neolithic?) in the three levels of the blur, the lower level being preceramic.

In the sequence revealed in the blur, the lithic and bone objects appear very homogenous, whereas the architecture develops noticeably: round pisé structures in the lower level (III), absence of buildings but fragments of mud bricks with much straw filler in the middle level (II), circular houses and a rectangular building in finer mud brick in the upper level (I). For this first occupation phase at Aratashen, the parallels are to be found in southeastern Transcaucasia and northeastern Mesopotamia, where the same construction techniques (pisé, parallelepipedic mud bricks) are used, where the vessels have a ridged form (as in level II, when pottery appears), and where the lithic and bone tools present the same assemblages. The Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture, which developed in the Kura basin and the Karabakh steppe, presents another type of architecture (domed buildings with walls in planoconvex bricks), different pottery (unridged forms), and bone and horn objects which include many types absent from the Ararat plain (hoes made with tubular bone and ox scapula, objects in the form of “knives”…).

The second occupation phase of Aratashen has produced pottery similar to that from the sites surveyed by Sardarian in the Ararat plain. It is evidence of the influence of the Late

21Le Mière and Picon 1999, p. 15.

22Cayönü, Ozdogan and Ozdogan, 1993 ; Norsun Tepe , Gülçür 2000.

23Burney and Lang 1971, pp. 41-42.

24Munchaev 1982, p. 122 ; Dzahparidze 1989, p. 245 ; Kushnareva 1993, p. 45.

10

Chalcolithic horizon, which occurred (end of the fifth and first half of the fourth millennium) in the whole of northern Mesopotamia: development of straw-tempered ware, initial use of the slow wheel, early forms of standardization in manufacture and typological features (“Coba bowls”), a frequent surface treatment with light scraping… However, truly Transcaucasian features, present in the pottery of the Sioni culture, which locally suceeded the ShulaveriShomutepe culture, characterise much of the production (rim incisions, row of perforations or series of protuberances on the upper part of the belly…).

With the extension of the excavation of horizons II and III of the site, future discoveries in the excavation of Aratashen should lead to a more detailed vision of late prehistory in the Ararat plain and add to a body of artefacts which is already quite varied. The radiocarbon analyses in progress will enable this hitherto unique local sequence to be integrated with more precision into regional chronologies.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abibullaev, O. A.

1959 “Raskopki kholma Kjul Tepe bliz Nakhichevani v 1955 g.” Materialy i Issledovanija po Arkheologii SSSR 67: 431-452.

Abibullaev, O. A.

1963 “Nekotorye itogi izuchenija kholma Kjul Tepe v Azerbajdzhane.” Sovetskaja Arkheologija 3: 157-168.

Burney, Ch. and Lang, M. D.

1971 The Peoples of the Hill: Ancient Ararat and Caucasus. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

Chabot, J.

(in press) “Matériel lithique découvert sur le site préhistorique d'Aratashen en Arménie (Néolithique / Chalcolithique).” 3e Congrès International sur l'Archéologie du Proche-Orient ancien, 3ICAANE, Paris, 15-19 Avril 2002.

Dzhaparidze, O.

1989 Na zare etnokul ‘turnoj istorii Kavkaza. Tbilissi: Izdatel'stvo Tbilisskogo Universiteta.

Dzhavakhishvili, A. I.

1973 Stroitel'noe delo i arkhitektura poselenij juzhnogo Kavkaza V-III tys. do n.e. Tbilisi: “Metsniereba”.

Gülçur, S.

2000 “Norsuntepe: die chalkolitische Keramik (Elazig / Ostanatolien),” in Chronologies des pays du Caucase et de l'Euphrate aux IVe-IIIe millénaires, edited by C. Marro and H. Hauptmann, pp 375-418. Istanbul: Institut Français d'Etudes Anatoliennes and Paris: de Boccard.

Hamlin, C.

1975 “Dalma Tepe.” Iran 13: 111-127.