Volume 119, Number 3 July 2015 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY The Journal of the Archaeological Institute of America www.ajaonline.org AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 656 Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02215 • Tel.: 617-353-9361 • www.ajaonline.org This article is © The Archaeological Institute of America and was originally published in AJA 119(3):279–294. This e-print is supplied to the author for noncommercial use only, following the terms outlined in the accompanying cover letter. The definitive electronic version of the article can be found at: www.jstor.org/stable/10.3764/aja.119.3.0279. article Chronological Contexts of the Earliest Pottery Neolithic in the South Caucasus: Radiocarbon Dates for Göytepe and Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, Azerbaijan yoshihiro nishiaki, farhad guliyev, and seiji kadowaki Includes Supplementary Content on AJA Online Research on the earliest Neolithic in the South Caucasus is still in its early stages. Establishing a solid chronological framework will help determine the timing of the emergence and subsequent development of regional Neolithic societies. This article reports on 46 radiocarbon dates obtained from the two recently excavated Early Pot- tery Neolithic sites of Göytepe and Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, the oldest farming villages known to date in West Azerbaijan. Comparing the dates from other related sites demonstrates that several settlements representing the earliest Pottery Neolithic emerged almost simultaneously at the beginning of the sixth millennium B.C.E. in the northern and southern foothills of the Lesser Caucasus Mountains. The lack of evidence for plant cultivation or animal husbandry at earlier sites suggests a foreign origin for agricultural economies in the South Caucasus. However, cultural items characterizing the initial agropastoral communities were not brought to the region as a package. Instead, we suggest that these early farming communities—that is, the Shomutepe-Shulaveri—underwent gradual but significant autochthonous develop- ments likely deriving from the aceramic stage. The chronological framework provided by Göytepe and Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe serves as a reference point for identifying details of early farmers’ cultural developments in the South Caucasus.1 introduction: issues surrounding neolithization in the south caucasus Archaeological research over the last few decades has shown that the first Neolithic societies developed as early as the 10th to ninth millennia B.C.E. in the Middle East, particularly in regions on the southeastern flanks of the Anatolian Mountains and farther south.2 While the details of these ini- tial Neolithization processes need further clarification, current research is also being directed toward understanding the processes that took place in 1 Our deep thanks go to Maisa N. Ragimova, director of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, the National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan, for permitting our American Journal of Archaeology archaeological work. We also thank the members of the Azerbaijan-Japan joint mission Volume 119, Number 3 for their collaboration during the research, in particular Fuad Huseinov, Valeh Alak- July 2015 barov, Shahin Salimbayov, Kazuya Shimogama, Chie Akashi, Takehiro Miki, and Saiji Pages 279–94 Arai. Financial support for this research was provided by grants from the Japan Soci- DOI: 10.3764/aja.119.3.0279 ety for Promotion of Sciences (24251014, 26770265). All figures are our own. A free, downloadable appendix can be found under this article’s abstract on AJA Online (www. ajaonline.org). www.ajaonline.org 2 See, e.g., Zeder 2008, 2011; Willcox 2013. 279 © 2015 Archaeological Institute of America 280 Y. NISHIAKI ET AL. [AJA 119 neighboring regions and their relationship with the assemblages from these sites were differentiated from Neolithization processes in the Middle East. The most the Mesolithic by the scarcity of microlithic compo- thoroughly studied issue has clearly been the disper- nents and from the Shomutepe-Shulaveri by the lack sal west toward Europe, whereas our understanding of “an advanced blade technique.”11 In addition, Kigu- of when and how Neolithic societies emerged in the radze and Menabde considered a specific tool type— northern, eastern, and southern regions is less satisfac- hooked tools—which is characterized by squamous, tory.3 The South Caucasus represents one such region subparallel blunting retouch on both lateral sides. They holding the potential for more intensive investigations suggested that this tool type is similar in morphology into these matters. and retouching technique to those from some Pre-Pot- The first goals must be to securely define the cul- tery Neolithic sites in southeast Anatolia (e.g., Çayönü) tural remains associated with subsistence records and and northern Iraq (e.g., Tell Magzalia, Tell Shimshara) to clarify the chronology of Neolithic settlements in and thus proposed a cultural and chronological link. the region. Research in the 1960s and 1970s revealed The identification of the aceramic/Early Neolithic the existence of fully fledged agricultural settlements or Proto-Neolithic has profound implications for un- in the South Caucasus—notably, along the Araxes and derstanding the Neolithization processes in the South Kura Valleys.4 Excavations at sites such as Shomutepe Caucasus. If this phase in fact exists and represents the and Shulaveris Gora led to the recovery of circular “transition” between the Mesolithic and Shomutepe- mudbrick buildings and typical Pottery Neolithic ma- Shulaveri, it indicates that indigenous foraging groups terials (defined as the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture),5 played a significant role in the formation of local including groundstones and domesticated plants and farming societies. However, they may have received animals. Although these early finds led some authors to allochthonous cultural influences from the Middle suggest links with northern Mesopotamia at the onset East, as implied by the hooked tools. This important of the farming economy in the region,6 the view has issue has recently led some researchers to reinvestigate long remained a mere suggestion. Even the chronologi- the aceramic/Early Neolithic sites in western (e.g., cal position of these earliest agricultural settlements has Anaseuli I, Paluri) and southern (Paravani) Georgia.12 been left uncertain, although a period from the fifth to These reinvestigations did not recover well-preserved fourth millennia B.C.E. was originally proposed based assemblages of artifacts/ecofacts or radiocarbon dates on uncalibrated radiocarbon dates, many of which that would verify the “aceramic Neolithic” attribution, were derived from uncertain archaeological contexts.7 but they confirmed that the sites mostly consist of thin Another important goal should be to interpret re- cultural deposits that are often disturbed. lations in the cultural and socioeconomic spheres be- Similarly, the same issue also promoted excavations tween the Shomutepe-Shulaveri farmers and the local of new sites in the search for Neolithic deposits dated Mesolithic foragers.8 Attempting to fill a gap in the earlier than the Shomutepe-Shulaveri phase. Such sites chrono-cultural sequence, Kiguradze and Menabde include Kotias Klde Cave in western Georgia and the proposed a transitional stage based on the aceramic/ Kmlo-2 Rock Shelter in western Armenia. Kotias Klde Early Neolithic sites or the Proto-Neolithic sites re- contains stratified deposits including the Neolithic ported in western (e.g., Anaseuli I, Paluri, Nagutni, layer (A2) overlying the Mesolithic one (B).13 Mesh- Darkveti) and southeastern (e.g., Dmanisi and sites veliani et al.’s brief report on the Neolithic layer men- near Lake Paravani) Georgia.9 But these sites were tions some characteristics of chipped stones, including attributed to the Neolithic based solely on techno- transverse arrowheads/trapezes, ventrally retouched typological characteristics of chipped stones. An ex- denticulates, and flake scrapers. Because such a tool ception is Darkveti layer IV, where some cultigens composition is reportedly similar to assemblages from and domesticated animals were reportedly discovered, the Darkveti Rock Shelter and Paluri (aceramic/Early though the details are not yet confirmed.10 Lithic Neolithic sites), radiocarbon dating as well as cultur- al/subsistence remains from layer A2 should provide significant data for verifying the aceramic/Early Neo- lithic phase in the South Caucasus. 3 Bellwood 2005; Zohary et al. 2012. In this respect, more detailed information is avail- 4 Kiguradze 1986; Narimanov 1987. able from the Kmlo-2 Rock Shelter.14 As for the lithics, 5 The terminology in this article follows Narimanov 1987, 192. 6 Abibullayev 1959; Munchaev 1982. 7 Munchaev 1982; Narimanov 1987. 8 Kozlowski 1996. 11 Kiguradze and Menabde 2004, 360. 9 Kiguradze and Menabde 2004, 362. 12 Meshveliani 2013; Arimura 2014. 10 Nebieridze 1978 (cited in Korobkova 1996); Kiguradze 13 Meshveliani et al. 2007. and Menabde 2004. 14 Arimura et al. 2009, 2010. © 2015 Archaeological Institute of America 2015] RADIOCARBON DATES FOR THE NEOLITHIC IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS 281 the tool composition at Kmlo-2 is characterized by and Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe reported here. These new a high proportion (30%) of microliths dominated records are part of the results of archaeological in- by backed bladelets and scalene bladelets with some vestigations along the Kura and Araxes Valleys, which geometric forms. It also includes “Kmlo tools,” a tool have greatly increased since the 1990s (fig.