Iranica Antiqua, vol. XXXVII, 2002

SMALL THINGS FORGOTTEN? CONTINUITY AMIDST CHANGE AT GODIN TEPE

BY Christopher EDENS (Sana’a)

The explosion of archaeological research in that ended abruptly in 1978-9 produced a wealth of information that redefined understanding of the historical dynamics of the ancient Near East. Carl Lamberg-Karlovsky was an active participant in that research explosion, yet the scope of his vision ranged far beyond Tepe Yahya and Iran. In his contributions to thinking about 4th and 3rd millennium problems he also encompassed Mesopotamia to the west, Central Asia and the Indus to the south, among other work investigating the structures and history of the longue durée of interregional interactions from the mid-fourth through early second millennium BC (e.g. Lamberg-Karlovsky 1972, 1975, 1984, 1986). Fol- lowing the 1970s, and accentuated by the events of 1990-1 that were so disastrous to Iraq, the focus of Near Eastern research shifted to Syria and eastern Turkey. This new cycle of research is again producing results that redefine understanding of the ancient Near East, but many of the problems are the same ones raised in Iran now viewed from a western rather than eastern perspective. With the flood of new information from the west threatening to submerge the eastern perspective, it is useful to revisit Iranian data in light of the newer results. This offering to Karl Lamberg-Karlovsky’s 65th birthday celebration deals with a body of material — chipped stone — of which he is not par- ticularly fond, but the offering frames chipped stone in a Karlovskian con- text, namely culture contact. Specifically, this study describes chipped stone from Godin VI-IV and draws attention to the strongly stable charac- ter of the Godin chipped stone despite (1) the Late compound in Godin V and (2) the intrusion of the Kura-Araxes culture-complex in Godin IV. In both cases Godin participated in much wider processes, the Uruk expansion and the subsequent ‘Kura-Araxes expansion’ respectively, that have attracted considerable research in eastern Turkey, Syria and the 32 C. EDENS

Levant. That the Uruk expansion is a question Lamberg-Karlovsky directly addressed (and not just as predecessor to the ‘proto-Elamite expansion’ so much closer to his heart), makes this topic all the more appropriate on this occasion.

Godin tepe Of concern here are the Late Chalcolithic through early Early Bronze Age levels at Godin tepe, i.e. Periods VI-IV, roughly 4000-2600 BC. The ceramic distinction between Godin VII and Godin VI is a relative one, based largely (and somewhat arbitrarily) on relative frequencies of painted decoration and certain wares (Young 1969: 3). While little coherent archi- tecture is reported, the settlement appears to have grown through Period VI to cover all of the citadel mound and perhaps a significant portion of the lower town by the end of the period (Young 1969: 6). The Late Uruk compound, with its concentration of Mesopotamian material culture (two- thirds of the pottery, plus seals, jar sealings, numerical tablets, and other items of southern Mesopotamian character; Weiss and Young 1975) existed on top of the upper citadel during the final phases of Godin VI. The settlement around the compound is correlated with the compound by the appearance of beveled rim bowls and Mesopotamian trays but lack other elements of the exotic assemblage inside the compound (Levine and Young 1987: 40). Young (1986) originally designated this Uruk horizon Godin V, but later assigned it to the last phases of Godin VI with the des- ignation Godin V/VI. In this stratigraphic interpretation, the Uruk com- pound existed within the Godin VI community which ‘permitted bearers of [the lowland Mesopotamian] culture to occupy, for perhaps [a] hundred years, a cluster of ‘public’ buildings built on the highest point of their town’ (Young 1986: 213)1.

1 In the absence of solid stratigraphic connections, the presence of BRBs and trays may be inadequate grounds on which to establish contemporaneity between the compound and the surrounding settlement. This interpretation supposes a social barrier between compound and settlement that was permeable to BRBs and trays but impermeable to everything else. This may well be the case. Alternatively, the BRBs may mark the initial advent of lowland material culture, later followed by a more varied expression of that material culture, in the manner suggested for Syro-Mesopotamia (e.g. Butterlin 1999). In this event, the Period VI settlement is older than the compound; indeed, perhaps the settlement did not exist when the compound was active. SMALL THINGS FORGOTTEN? 33

Following a relatively short hiatus marked by erosion surfaces, the Period IV settlement covered a somewhat smaller area than its immediate predecessor; at the Kangavar regional scale Period IV settlements were fewer in number and the settlement pattern less hierarchical than in the previous period (Young 1986: 219). The Godin IV pottery marks a radical break with the Godin VII-VI tradition, and shows strong connections with the Kura-Araxes (or Early Trans-Caucasian) culture complex to the north. Referring to this ceramic transformation in sites of eastern Luristan and the Hamadan plain, Levine and Young (1987: 40) remark that ‘in all cases [it] appear[s] to represent a complete cultural break caused by a massive foreign invasion of those regions.’ Absolute chronology is not tightly established for much of this sequence. Godin III sets the upper limit for Godin IV at c. 2600 BC (Hen- drickson 1987), while the strong parallels among the glyptic, textual and other small finds of the Godin V compound with 18-17 and Warka IV place Godin V around 3200 BC or, judging by post-Susa 17 pictograms on one tablet, slightly later. But Godin IV floats between these two limits, with evidence of settlement abandonment of uncertain duration both before and after this period; the appearance of several E.D. I sealings (e.g. Young and Levine 1974 fig. 34.3; cf. Voigt and Dyson 1992) favor the middle part of this range. In ceramic terms Godin VI emerged progres- sively from Godin VII, the latter period belonging to the late 5th-early 4th millennium; seals with (Early-) Middle Uruk parallels affirm Godin VI occupation during the middle third of the 4th millennium and probably earlier in that millennium as well (Voigt and Dyson 1992)2.

The Godin chipped stone sample Archaeology of post-neolithic periods in the Near East traditionally pays little attention to chipped stone, and the Godin excavation was not an exception to this rule. Young began the Godin excavation in 1965, and continued the work in alternating years until 1973. The project thus came during the rhetorical heyday of the Anglo-American ‘new archaeology.’ The theoretical aspect of this movement soon found expression in some

2 Young’ significantly shorter absolute chronology, which places Godin VII at 3700- 3400 BC and Godin VI at 3400-3100 with Godin V/VI occupying the final century of the latter span (and Godin IV at 3000-2600 BC) is based on uncorrected radiocarbon dates (Young 1986: 212; see Young and Levine 1974: 15). 34 C. EDENS

Near Eastern archaeological circles — including the analysis of trade and social change to which Lamberg-Karlovsky made significant contributions during the 1970s (e.g. Sabloff and Lamberg-Karlovsky 1975) — but the corollary revolution in field techniques more rarely did so even after the 1970s. The Godin excavations, coming too soon to be shaped by the new intellectual fashion or by the field techniques it required, remained firmed rooted in the goals of culture-history. The Godin project accordingly rated chipped stone as a low priority, taking few measures to secure unbiased samples3 and making only cursory mention of chipped stone in reports (with the partial exception of Seh Gabi; Hamlin 1974). As a result the chipped stone collection from Godin IV-VI now housed in the is small (369 pieces plus three unworked pebbles or nodules were available for examination in 1998) and it heavily emphases blades along with large flakes, cores and other blocks of worked stone — the nature of the sample reflects the biasing effect of hand collection in a traditional (culture-historical) Near Eastern excavation4. The collection is also spatially and chronologically skewed, the Deep Sounding on the Citadel providing three-quarters, and Godin V contexts well over half, the sample. This collection bias imposes severe limits on analytic possibility, by excluding many standard technological and behavioral studies framed by such conceptual orientations as ‘chipped stone economy,’ ‘chaîne opèra- toire’ and the like. But despite its limitations the Godin chipped stone sample may profitably be brought to bear on some issues beyond basic description of the collection as a collection. Specifically, the blades in the collection are sufficiently numerous, and sufficiently distinctive, to provide a first approximation description of changing behavior (with respect to chipped stone blades) under conditions of culture contact, viz. the Late Uruk compound of Godin V within the continuing Godin VI settlement, and the appearance of Transcaucasian pottery styles that marks Godin IV.

3 Screening of two contexts in the Godin V enclosure did occur in the 1973 season, producing lithic samples significantly different in character from the general collection, but these few contexts provide an insufficient basis for drawing conclusions. 4 Blades alone comprise 33% of the ROM collection, an extraordinarily high propor- tion. Taken by period, the bias is very uneven and even more obvious: roughly 25% of the Godin V pieces, 45% of the Godin IV pieces, and 90% of the Godin VI pieces are blades. SMALL THINGS FORGOTTEN? 35

Canaanean blades at Godin Taken globally, the Godin collection expresses at least two fundamentally different approaches to chipping stone. The first approach used direct per- cussion (hard and seemingly also soft hammer) to produce flakes from expedient cores5. The cores are commonly angular blocks with multiple striking platforms from each of which only several flakes are struck. A block might be reduced to a nearly globular form, but this degree of reduc- tion is exceptional. The flakes can be quite large (the largest is over 8 cm long and 9 cm wide), are irregular in shape, and usually present plain or cortical striking platforms (74 of 107 platforms) and platform angles around 75-80°6. The flakes include some (N=23) blades — conventionally defined as any flake at least twice as long as it is wide — with irregular sub-parallel edges and dorsal ridges, along with plain and acutely angled striking platforms; these blades, or lamellar flakes, are technologically identical to flakes. A small number of flakes are retouched as formal tools, including a scraper, a backed flake, a truncated flake, two drills, and a pièce écaillée. Four geometric microliths — a trapeze and three lunates — also occur, all in Godin V contexts. The second approach to chipping stone at Godin produced what Young (1969: 6) described as ‘long parallel-sided flint blades;’ more specifically, these are Canaanean blades7. Canaanean blades enjoy a variety of defini- tions (summarized in Rosen 1983: 16), none of which are entirely satis- factory. As used here the term refers to a blade technology that produces a wide (normally over 2 cm, at least in Syro-Mesopotamian sites) an extremely regular blade with a wide and deep bulb; the cores that produce

5 I.e. unprepared cores from which a given flake is struck improvisationally within the limits of the core geometry formed by the previous sequence of flake removals. 6 The angle formed by the striking platform and flake release surface of a core, or by the striking platform remnant and the dorsal face of a flake. A striking platform angle well below 90 is required by the mechanics of direct percussion flaking. 7 In addition a group of 9 blades presents regular edges and proximal characteristics suggestive of deliberate blade production by non-Canaanean techniques; at least one such blade was struck from a bipolar core. These blades are significantly smaller than the Canaanean sample (width=1.68+/µ.27 cm) and were made in a different mix of raw mate- rials (five on chert and only one on felsite, with quartzite and argillite also appearing; con- trast with the Canaanean blades summarized in Table 2). The coexistence of multiple blade technologies in a given assemblage is a common feature of 4th and 3rd millennium sites. These blades are grouped with the lamellar flakes in Table 1 only for the sake of brevity. 36 C. EDENS these blades take different shapes according to the original form of the raw material, but invariably present a single faceted striking platform that often (always?) is set at an angle greater than 90º with respect to the blade release face. The technique(s) that produced such large, regular blades with unusually angled striking platforms remains unclear (Edens 1999: 28). The Canaanean blades at Godin vary in their characteristics only within narrow ranges. They are relatively narrow and thin, averaging something over two centimeters in width and half a centimeter in thickness8. With straight and parallel edges, dorsal ridges, and typically trapezoidal cross- sections, the Godin blades follow the Canaanean paradigm. The striking platforms are fairly narrow relative to blade width, are faceted, and present a slightly obtuse striking platform angle (see Table 2). The Godin Canaanean blades are modified in characteristic ways (see Table 4). While a few are backed, 19% are truncated, and fully 38% are retouched along one or both edges. The edge retouch typically is abrupt to semi-abrupt, although a few instances of flat and more invasive retouch also occur, and denticulation is common. In addition to deliberate retouch, heavy use (and post-depositional) damage appears on one or both edges of the majority of blades. Gloss (‘sickle sheen’) is another use-related effect characteristic of the Godin blades: slightly over half the blades are glossed along one or both edges (see Table 5). The gloss normally forms a band parallel to the blade edge, but occasionally arcs across the faces of the blade; these gloss patterns reflect differences in hafting. Retouched edges and to a lesser extent truncation are associated with gloss: all but 7 of the 48 retouched blades and all but 7 of the 27 truncated blades are also glossed (conversely, only 21 of the 75 glossed blades are not modified in one or both of these ways). Gloss invariably formed over the retouch,

8 As almost all the blades are intentionally or accidentally broken into segments, aver- age length is relatively meaningless. The two complete Canaanean blades in the ROM col- lection are 5.93 and 10.22 cm long. This range almost certainly underestimates signifi- cantly the average length of complete blades at Godin. Three broken blades in the collection are longer than 10.22 cm., the longest at 13.51 cm. The proportions of dis- tal:medial:proximal blade sections in the collection is roughly 2:5:2, suggesting that each blade in fact produced 3-4 sections (similar to other sites, e.g. Caneva 1993). Since the average blade section (i.e. excluding complete blades) is 5.32+/µ1.98 cm (N=139), many of the complete blades may have been 15-20 cm long, depending on the constraints of available raw material size. SMALL THINGS FORGOTTEN? 37 which sharpened or renewed the edge of the tool, and also over use-related edge damage. As a group, the Godin blades were very heavily used9. The Canaanean blade technology appeared in eastern Anatolia by 4000 BC, and only half a millennium later spread to the southern Levant from where the technology takes its name (Schmidt 1995: 170; Edens 1999: 27). The appearance of several Canaanean blades in Godin VII contexts suggest that the technology was just as old in the central Zagros as in eastern Anatolia: a minor contribution to the history of technology. More significantly, production of Canaanean blades seems to have been arranged in a similar fashion throughout its history, regardless of region, namely as a specialized craft practiced in a relatively small number of workshops that produced for a relatively large local catchment.

Workshops and regional distribution The two approaches to chipping stone thus form very different patterns not just in their respective technologies but also in the use of their products. The two approaches differ also in another significant aspect: raw materials (Table 1). The percussion flaking approach employs mostly cherts, with other materials making relatively minor appearances, whereas Canaanean blades were made on felsites slightly more often than on cherts, and also include a significant proportion of quarztite. The cherts are highly varied in color, a cream-mottled violet or red fine chert being most common in the non-Canaanean blade sample (roughly half), but these varieties make only a minor appearance among the Canaanean blades, where brown, gray and green-gray fine and medium grained cherts are common. The felsites are more homogenous, the Canaanean blades mostly a dull red medium- grained material but the felsite flakes on a fine-grained gray stone. The quartzites also reveal the use of different sources, the Canaanean blades on fine- or medium-grained gray stone, the flakes on a pale green medium- grained material. The contrasting sets of techniques and raw materials at Godin repeat a pattern noted in lithic assemblages from other sites, in which Canaanean

9 Anderson (Anderson and Inizan 1994) and Chabot (1998) argue from use-wear studies that Canaanean blades were used, perhaps invariably, as teeth in threshing sledges. More likely this use was secondary recycling of blades already used for other purposes; Edens 1999: 29-30). 38 C. EDENS blades appear in a different suite of raw materials than do flake technolo- gies or even other blade technologies at the same site (e.g. Schmidt 1995, Edens 1999). The nature and intra-site distribution of the flake assembles are consistent with non-specialized household production, commonly of ad hoc tools from locally available raw materials. But the Canaanean blades appear to represent something else. The cores for Canaanean blades figure in the assemblages from few sites, but where the cores appear they often do so in relatively large numbers. The Canaanean blade cores from the workshops at Hassek Höyük (Otte and Behm-Blancke 1992) and at Titrish Höyük (Algaze et al. 2000) provide vivid examples from southwestern Anatolia, with other cases found in the Levant (e.g. Futato 1996). The blades themselves sometimes are found in bundles of half a dozen or a dozen blades (examples cited in Edens 1999: n.3 7), and the blades from a given site often show significantly different metrical properties (specifi- cally, blade width) from sites in neighboring districts (Rosen 1989 for the southern Levant; unpublished comparison of late 4th millennium assem- blages from north Syria/eastern Anatolia shows the same pattern). Such observations led Rosen (1983: 28, 1989a: 209, 1989b: 109-110) to propose a model of specialized craft production in one or only several places, perhaps villages, that satisfied the demand for Canaanean blades in district marketing networks within the southern Levant. Similar economic structures are also evident to the north, in Syro-Mesopotamia and eastern Anatolia, and now in the central Zagros at Godin10. The heavy use-wear evident on many of the Godin Canaanean blades implies that these items were moderately valuable, and that they were curated to a degree not evident in many assemblages from e.g. southeastern Anatolia.

10 An alternative interpretation regards Canaanean blade production at places like Has- sek Höyük to have been oriented toward long-distance exchange and distant markets at places like Jebel Aruda and Habuba Kabira (Otte and Behm-Blancke 1992:173). A third view, expressed specifically about the technologically different blades of southern Mesopotamia but potentially arguable for Canaanean blades also, identifies blade produc- tion as fairly ordinary domestic activity rather than a specialized craft (Pollock et al. 1996, Pope and Pollock 1995). The published metric evidence contradicts the specific claims of the first alternative while regional distributions of Canaanean blade cores urge against adoption of the second alternative to the case of Canaanean blade. SMALL THINGS FORGOTTEN? 39

Chronological and spatial dimensions The characteristics of the Canaanean blades at Godin remained remarkably stable through time. Tables 2-5 summarize some basic characteristics of the chronological series. These data reveal only several minor differences between periods: the Godin VI tend to be wider than those from Godin V or IV, the angle of striking platforms among the Godin IV blades tend to be closer to 90º than the earlier blades (but neither difference is statisti- cally significant), and the Godin V blades irrespective of modification are somewhat less frequently glossed than are those from the other two peri- ods (but the Godin V compound was the setting for the several sieving exercises of the 1993 season, and this difference can be put to recovery bias). Otherwise the Canaanean blade samples for each period are indis- tinguishable from each other. The stable character of the blades through time extends also to patterns of modification and of activities that induce glossing. Here again the samples for each period are statistically indistin- guishable11. The blades also appear to have a similar character across the site. Here the evidence is insufficient to make a strong case: the Deep Sounding provided over half the blades and these form the great majority of the periods IV and V samples, while most of the period VI sample comes from Op. N at the northeast end of the lower town. The samples are simply too small and uneven in spatial distribution to divide. But an important point may nevertheless be made. The global character of the Godin V blades is identical to that of the other two samples. Since the Late Uruk compound provided 85% of the Godin V blade sample, that character refers in the first instance to activities inside the compound and only secondarily to those in the surrounding settlement. Moreover, the blades from the contemporaneous settlement outside the compound are identical

11 Stability over such a long period may seem implausible, and here sampling bias and sample size may be factors at play. For metric data, the most readily comparable attrib- utes, Canaanean blades at sites in other regions often show little or non-directional change through time (e.g. Braidwood and Braidwood 1960 passim., Schmidt 1996:56-57), those at e.g. Hacinebi decrease in size, while those at some sites in the southern Levant increase in size through time (e.g. McCartney 1996: 145). Such change thus has only local signif- icance, and stability of metrical attributes at Godin is as plausible as directional change. Persistence of modification and use-related wear patterns, on the other hand, may not be so easily accepted. Obviously this point holds critical moment to this study, but it can be definitively confirmed or overturned only with renewed excavation at Godin. 40 C. EDENS in dimensions and proportions of raw materials with those inside the com- pound12. Thus the Uruk compound participated fully — directly by partic- ipation in the local market or indirectly by the activities of local residents working inside the compound — in the Godin lithic tradition. From the lithic perspective only the presence of the four geometric microliths inside the compound mark a departure from patterns previously laid down and continued afterward (geometric microliths are a normal if usually minor aspect to Uruk lithic assemblages in southern Mesopotamia; e.g. Eich- mann 1986, Pope and Pollock 1995).

Discussion The implications of the Godin Canaanean blades relates to interpretation of the two episodes of culture contact and the mechanisms by which alien cultural patterns, one originating ultimately in southern Mesopotamia, the other in Transcaucasia, appeared at Godin as part of the Uruk expansion and the Kura-Araxes expansion respectively. The Uruk expansion has attracted several different but not altogether mutually exclusive accounts: flight from the growing power of state authority in southern Mesopotamia (Johnson 1989), relief from overpopu- lation by foundation of daughter colonies (Schwartz 1988), acculturation of, or emulation by, less complexly organized neighboring societies (Pollock 1992, Helwing 1999), and commercial enterprise (e.g. Lamberg- Karlovsky 1984, Sürenhagen 1986, Stein 1999) that in some accounts amount to state-directed imperialism (Algaze 1993). In the latter account, Godin serves as the archetypal ‘outpost:’ a small colony (or factory?) distant from Uruk-related settlement clusters and established at key points on major communication and trade routes, inferentially in order to control flows along those routes. In the case of Godin, and without rehearsing all the possibilities, the blade evidence is fully compatible with the accultura- tion/emulation interpretation but requires of the merchantile interpretation a more nuanced reading of the situation such that the Mesopotamian living in the compound not only relied on existing local products (also evident in the notable proportion of local pottery within the compound) but also

12 The settlement blades (N=7) are slightly but not statistically significantly wider than the compound blades; their greater frequency of modification (5 of the 7 are backed or truncated and/or retouched) is very likely a sampling bias. SMALL THINGS FORGOTTEN? 41 carried out routine tasks such as agriculture with (lithic) equipment made and used in the local mode. Perhaps a small number of foreigners with a large local staff? Since the recognition of the ultimately Transcaucasian origins of Red- Black Burnished Ware, Khirbet Kerak Ware, and other local or regional variations, interpretations of the relationship have pointed to violent inva- sion (e.g. Burney 1989), more peaceful but still mass migration (e.g. Esse 1991), or itinerant craftsmen (e.g. Ben Tor 1992). More recent under- standings of the Kura-Araxes expansion point to the variability of its manifestations, both between and within regions, and emphasize agency and contingent historical circumstances within situations of culture contact (including migration, if only as commercial movement). One interpre- tation of this kind suggests that some southern Levantine groups disaf- fected with local power relations adopted alien material trappings (including Khirbet Kerak ware) as an act signifying their rejection of the status quo (Philips 1999). The Iranian data are not sufficiently developed to make sensible argu- ments along these lines, although the Transcaucasian phenomenon defi- nitely does take on regionally distinctive appearances (not just in pottery: here the persistence of rectilinear domestic architecture at Godin, in contrast to the round houses of Yanik tepe, is significant; see Sagona 1984 for overview). The chipped stone evidence from Godin brought to bear here adds another dimension to the Iranian situation, namely the persistence both of regional economic relationships and of traditional modes of activity. Indeed, at least at the regional scale the appearance of Godin IV pottery cannot have involved a replacement of populations or even, very probably, the subordination of one population by another. The persistence of lithic technologies and of organizations of produc- tion evident in Godin IV is only one of numerous parallel instances of resistance to change. The appearance of Transcaucasian-related pottery, radical changes in domestic architecture, and/or significant shifts in settle- ment character and regional settlement pattern are not paralleled by major changes in chipped stone industries at places like Norshuntepe (Schmidt 1995), Arslantepe (Caneva 1993), sites in the Hatay (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960), and Godin. Instead the regional craft systems for the production of Canaanean blades continued to function along long-estab- lished lines: the humble tools of daily life are less suitable media for rhetorical presentations of social identity than are pottery (especially the 42 C. EDENS pottery used to serve food in potentially public contexts), dwellings, cloth- ing, and the like. Here the fundamental interpretative questions for Godin V and Godin IV converge: who were these people, and what were they doing in Godin? To get beneath surface appearances, notably of pottery, the analysis must address the activities of households within a settlement and make distinc- tions that cut across the commonalities of pottery, architecture and small finds that traditionally define an archaeological culture. To build on firm foundations interpretations of long-distance trade, of world systems, of the longue durée, archaeologists of the ancient Near East must look equally at the intra-community and the interregional scales, and embrace the impli- cations for field techniques of the ‘new archaeology’ even as they jettison the theoretical apparatus that spawned those techniques.

Acknowledgments I thank T. Cuyler Young for giving his permission to study the Godin chipped stone collection during the winter 1997-8; Edward Keall for his approval of the study, provision of work space, and his hospitality; Robert Mason for confirming my identification of felsite as the raw material in question; Daniel Rahimi for our discussions about chipped stone; collec- tions in the ROM; Virginia Badler for her clarification of Godin stratigra- phy; Daniel Potts for providing a suitable venue in which to present the Godin collection; and not least Timothy Kaiser for a thoroughly enjoyable week during an otherwise difficult year.

Bibliography

ALGAZE, G., 1993. The Uruk world system. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ALGAZE, G., MATNEY, T., ROSEN, S., and ERDAL, D. 2000. Excavations at Titris Höyük, Sanlıurfa province: preliminary report on the 1998 season. 21. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı. Ankara: T.C. Kültür Bakanlısı, pp. 145-156. ANDERSON, P., and INIZAN, M-L. 1994. Utilisation du tribulum au début du IIIe millènaire: des lâmes canaanéenes lustrées à Kutan (Ninevite V) dans la région de Mossoul, Irak. Paléorient 20: 85-103. BEN TOR, A. 1992. The Early Bronze Age. In: Ben Tor, A., ed. The Archaeology of Ancient Israel. New Haven: Yale University Press. BRAIDWOOD, R., and BRAIDWOOD, L. 1960. Excavations on the plain of Antioch I. The earlier assemblages, Phases A-J. Chicago: OIP 61. SMALL THINGS FORGOTTEN? 43

BURNEY, C. 1989. The Khirbet Kerak question and the Early Trans-Caucasian background. In: de Miroschedji, P., ed. L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancien. Oxford: BAR International Series 527, pp. 331-339. BUTTERLIN, P. 1999. Les modalités du contact: chronologie et espaces de l’ex- pansion urukéenne dans le secteur de Birecik. Paléorient 25: 127-137. CANEVA, I. 1993. From Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age III at Arslantepe: A lithic perspective. In: Frangipane, M. et al., eds. Between the rivers and over the mountains. Rome: La Sapienza, pp. 319-339. CHABOT, J. 1998. Analyse spatiale et stratigraphique des artifacts de pierre sur éclats de tel Atij-centre. In: Fortin, M. and Aurenche, O., eds. Espace naturel, espace habité en Syrie du nord (10e-2e millènaires av. J.-C.). : Cana- dian Society for Mesopotamian Studies, pp. 257-269. EDENS, C. 1999. The chipped stone industry at Hacinebi: technological styles and social identity. Paléorient 25/1: 23-33. EICHMANN, R. 1986. Die Steingeräte aus dem ‘Riemchengebäude’ in Uruk- Warka. BaM 17: 97-130. ESSE, D. 1991. Subsistence, trade, and social organization in Early Bronze Age Palestine. Chicago: SAOC 50. FUTATO, E. 1996. Early Bronze III Canaanean blade/scraper cores from Tell Halif, Israel. In: Seger, J., ed. Retrieving the past, essays on archaeological research and methodology in honor of Gus van Beek. Winona Lake: Eisen- brauns, pp. 61-74. HAMLIN, C. 1974. Appendix A. The Seh Gabi chipped stone: Preliminary obser- vations. In: Young, T.C. and Levine, L. Excavations of the Godin Tepe Project: Second progress report. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum, pp. 39-40. HELWING, B. 1999. Culural interaction at Hassek Höyük, Turkey: New evidence from pottery analysis. Paléorient 25: 91-99. HENRICKSON, R. 1987. Godin III and the chronology of central western Iran circa 2600-1400 BC. In: Hole, F., ed. The archaeology of western Iran.Washington: Smithsonian Press, pp. 205-227. JOHNSON, G. 1989. Late Uruk in greater Mesopotamia: Expansion or collapse? Origini 14: 595-613. LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY, C.C. 1972. Trade mechanisms in Indus-Mesopotamian interrelations. JAOS 92: 222-230. LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY, C.C. 1975. Third millennium modes of exchange and modes of production. In: Sabloff, J., and Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C. eds. Ancient Civilization and Trade. Albuquerque: SAR., pp. 341-368. LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY, C.C. 1984. The ‘longue durée’ of the ancient Near East. In: Huot, J.-L., Yon, M., and Calvet, Y., eds. De l’Indus aux Balkans: receuil à la mèmoire de Jean Deshayes. Paris: Association pour la Diffusion de la Pensée Française, pp. 55-72. LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY, C.C. 1986. Third millennium structure and process: From the Euphrates to the Indus and the Oxus to the Indian Ocean. Oriens Antiquus 25: 189-219. 44 C. EDENS

LEVINE, L., and YOUNG, T.C. 1987. A summary of the ceramic assemblages of the central western Zagros from the Middle Neolithic to the late third millennium BC. In: Huot, J-L., ed. Préhistoire de la Mésopotamie. Paris: CNRS, pp. 15- 54. MCCARTNEY, C. 1996. A report on the chipped stone assemblage from Tell Iktanu, Jordan. Levant 28: 131-155. OTTE, M., and BEHM-BLANCKE, M. 1992. Das lithische Inventar: Die Rekon- struktion technischer Verfahrensweisen. In Behm-Blancke, M., ed. Hassek Höyük: Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen und lithische Industrie. Tubingen: Wasmuth, pp. 165-176. PHILIP, G. 1999. Complexity and diversity in the southern Levant during the third millennium BC: The evidence of Khirbet Kerak ware. Journal of Mediter- ranean Archaeology 12: 26-57. POLLOCK, S. 1992. Bureaucrats and managers, peasants and pastoralists, imperial- ists and traders: Research on the Uruk and Jamdat Nasr periods in Mesopotamia. Journal of World Prehistory 6: 297-336. POLLOCK, S., POPE, M., and COURSEY, C. 1996. Household production at the Uruk Mound, Abu Salabikh, Iraq. AJA 100: 683-698. POPE, M., and POLLOCK, S. 1995. Trade, tools, and tasks: A study of Uruk chipped stone industries. Economic Anthropology 16: 227-265. ROSEN, S. 1983. The Canaanean blade and the Early Bronze Age. IEJ 33: 15-29. ROSEN, S. 1989a. The analysis of Early Bronze Age chipped stone industries: a summary statement. In: de Miroschedji, P., ed. L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancien. Oxford: BAR International Series 527, pp. 199-222. ROSEN, S. 1989b. The origins of craft specialization: Lithic perspectives. In: Hershkovitz, I., ed. People and culture in change. Oxford: BAR International Series 508, pp. 107-114. SABLOFF, J., and LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY, C.C. eds. 1975. Ancient Civilization and Trade. Albuquerque: SAR. SAGONA, A. 1984 The Caucasian Region in the Early Bronze Age. Oxford: BAR International Series 214 (i-iii). SCHMIDT, K. 1995. Review of Behm-Blanke, M., ed. Hassek Höyük. Germania 73: 166-171. SCHMIDT, K. 1996. Norsuntepe: Kleinfunde I, Die lithische Industrie. Mainz: von Zabern. STEIN, G., 1999. Rethinking world-systems: Diasporas, colonies, and interaction in Uruk Mesopotamia. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. SÜRENHAGEN, D. 1986. The dry-farming belt: The and subsequent developments. In: Weiss, H., ed. The Origins of Cities in Dry Farming Syria and Mesopotamia in the Third Millennium BC. Guildford, CT: Four Quarters Publishing, pp. 7-43. VOIGT, M. and DYSON, R.H., Jr. 1992. The chronology of Iran, ca. 8000-2000 BC. In: Ehrich, R.W, ed. Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 122-178. SMALL THINGS FORGOTTEN? 45

YOUNG, T.C. 1969. Excavations at Godin Tepe: First progress report. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum. YOUNG, T.C. 1986. Godin VI/V and central western Iran at the end of the fourth millennium. In: Finkbeiner, U. and Röllig, W., eds. Gamdat NaÒr: Period or Regional Style? Wiesbaden: Reichert, pp. 212-228. YOUNG, T. C. and LEVINE, L. 1974. Excavations of the Godin Tepe Project: Sec- ond progress report. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum. WEISS, H. and YOUNG, T. C. 1975. The merchants of Susa, Godin V and plateau- lowland relations in the late fourth millennium B.C. Iran 13: 1-17.

Table 1: Raw materials by count chert felsite quartzite argillite obsidian other total Canaanean. blades 63 67 10 2 0 2 144 other blades 22 4 3 1 1 1 32 flakes* 123 7 7 0 2 1 140 shatter 29 2 0 0 0 1 32 cores 20 0 0 0 0 4 24 total 257 80 20 3 3 11 371 * including retouched flakes

Table 2: Basic metrical characteristics (cm, degrees) of Canaanean blades, by period blade dimensions striking platform dimensions N length width thickness N width depth angle all 141 5.34+/-2.01 2.21+/-.38 0.60+/-.14 36 1.37+/-.42 0.54+/-.18 96.6+/-5.5 Godin IV 39 4.64+/-1.32 2.21+/-.39 0.62+/-.15 8 1.11+/-.36 0.47+/-.18 93.6+/-6.4 Godin V 49 4.97+/-1.82 2.18+/-.40 0.61+/-.13 13 1.38+/-.49 0.57+/-.24 98.1+/-4.8 Godin VI 42 6.52+/-2.34 2.27+/-.34 0.58+/-.12 9 1.41+/-.33 0.53+/-.14 98.1+/-5.3 Not all blades are assignable to a period; two blades are shattered and provide no width mea- surement 46 C. EDENS

Table 3: Raw materials of Canaanean blades, by period chert felsite quartzite argillite other all N=144 44% 47% 7% 1% 1% Godin IV N= 39 46% 46% 8% 0 0 Godin V N= 50 42% 44% 8% 2% 4% Godin VI N= 44 43% 50% 5% 2% 0

Table 4: Modification by count of Canaanean blades, by period all blades Godin IV Godin V Godin VI N= 144 N=39 N=50 N=44 unmodified 73 19 26 23 backed 4 2 1 0 truncated 11 4 4 3 retouched edge(s) 39 9 14 13 truncated+retouched 15 5 5 5 backed+retouched 1 0 0 1 backed+truncated 1 0 0 1

Table 5: Percentage of glossed Canaanean blades in each modification category, by period all blades Godin IV Godin V Godin VI N= 144 39 50 44 unmodified 29% 26% 19% 44% backed 0% 0% 0% — truncated 55% 75% 25% 67% retouched edge(s) 85% 78% 79% 92% truncated+retouched 93% 100% 80% 100% backed+retouched 100% — — 100% backed+truncated 100% 0% — 100%