Bone, shell tools and ornaments from the Epipalaeolithic site of Ali Tappeh, East of Alborz Range, Iran

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 21 (2018) 137–157

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jasrep

Bone, shell tools and ornaments from the Epipalaeolithic site of Ali Tappeh, East of Alborz Range, Iran

T

⁎

Laura Mancaa, , Marjan Mashkoura, Sonia Shidrangb, Aline Averbouha, Fereidoun Biglaric a Archéozoologie, Archéobotanique: Sociétés, Pratiques et Environnements (UMR 7209), Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, CNRS, CP56–57, 55 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France b Saeedi Institute for Advanced Studies, University of Kashan, Kashan 87317-51167, Iran c Paleolithic Department, National Museum of Iran, 30 Tir St., Emam Khomaini Ave, 1136918111 Tehran, Iran

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Bone and shell tools Ornamental objects Epipalaeolithic Ali Tappeh Cave Iran

The study of the hard animal matter assemblage from Ali Tappeh Cave, located on the south-eastern shores of the Caspian Sea, sheds new light on many unknown aspects of Epipalaeolithic ways of life in this region and expands our knowledge of techno-economic strategies using materials other than lithic artefacts. Fourteen artefacts from the collection conserved in the National Museum of Iran were selected for the present research. The osseous and shell artefacts were studied using technological and microwear approaches in order to reconstruct the different stages of the techno-economic scheme of raw material acquisition, transformation and utilization of the objects. The technical marks show the use of abrasion, scraping and grooving techniques in the debitage and shaping phases for the transformation of bone tools, shell tools and ornaments. The acquisition and transformation sequences of the shell artefacts were partially reconstructed based on the identification of the finished objects, blanks, waste or potential rough-outs and raw material blocks. The acquisition sequence primarily focused on the collection of dead shells as raw material. The potential source of these materials, the south-eastern coast of the Caspian Sea, during the Epipalaeolithic was located about 40 km from the Ali Tappeh site. The choice of the blocks of raw materials only involves two species: Didacna and Cerastoderma. Three ways of raw material transformation were identified in this study: shell fracturing, probably connected to the production of discoid beads, direct shaping involving the regularization and perforation of elliptical raw material blocks for the production of pendants, direct shaping by perforating raw material blocks for the production of pendants. Suspension traces indicate their use as ornamental objects. Only one specimen in the whole assemblage was used directly, without prior transformation. The use-wear traces suggest the utilization of this shell tool for hide scraping. Similar processes are attested in some Epipalaeolithic sites in the Caucasus for the perforation of ornamental objects, suggesting analogous transformation methods for hard animal materials.

1. Introduction

Biglari and Shidrang, 2016; Goring-Morris, 1987; Marks, 1977; Phillips and Mintz, 1977; Wahida, 1999). However, on a smaller scale, the subsistence patterns of Epipalaeolithic groups are relatively well known in Southwest Asia, particularly in the Levant, Zagros and Anatolia. Generally speaking, their economy is based on gathering wild plants, such as wheat grains, barley, lentils, nuts, cereal grains, chaff, largeseeded legumes, almonds, terebinth, sedges, docks and knotweed (Arranz-Otaegui et al., 2016; Asouti and Fuller, 2011, 2013; Colledge and Conolly, 2010; Colledge et al., 2013; Conolly et al., 2011; Darabi, 2015; Fairbairn et al., 2014; Matthews et al., 2013; Matthews and Fazeli-Nashli, 2013; Riehl et al., 2013). Archaeozoological studies show that the gazelle was the most widely exploited animal, but a large panoply of wild species, such as the red deer, onager, boar, turtle and

The Epipalaeolithic in Southwest Asia corresponds to the late Upper Pleistocene and early Holocene and extends from 20000 to 9600 BP (e.g. Bar-Yosef, 1998; Harris, 2010; Olszewski, 2012, 2014; Watkins, 2009, p. 202). The recognition of Epipalaeolithic cultures in Southwest Asia goes back to the 1930s, with the works of pioneers like Dorothy Garrod, who identified the Natufian in the Levant or the Zarzian in the Zagros region (Garrod, 1930, 1932, 1936). Since then, several cultural entities, such as the Kebaran or Mushabian, have been described in different geographical parts of the Levant, while the Zarzian in Zagros has remained the best known Epipalaeolithic culture in Iran due to the scarcity of research (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 1975, 1981, 1987; Biglari, 2012;

⁎

Corresponding author at: Muséum national d'histoire naturelle, CNRS, CP57, 55 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France. E-mail address: [email protected] (L. Manca).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2018.06.023 Received 19 February 2018; Received in revised form 9 June 2018; Accepted 17 June 2018 2352-409X/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 21 (2018) 137–157

L. Manca et al.

Upper Palaeolithic and Epipalaeolithic materials (Golovanova et al., 2010, p. 309, 2014, p. 195). Biconical perforation is exclusively used on Epipalaeolithic materials, whereas during the Upper Palaeolithic phase, perforation is conical, indicating that the objects were perforated from a single surface (Golovanova et al., 2010, p. 310, Figs. 6, 2). For the Epipalaeolithic, biconical perforation is implemented by direct shaping (sensu Averbouh, 2000) on teeth and bone blanks, which is also the case for the production of tools (a needle) and ornaments (pendants). This field of study has great potential and comprises an important category of archaeological remains, yet the state of current knowledge from the late Pleistocene and the early Holocene in Iran and the surrounding areas is still limited to very few archaeological assemblages (Campana, 1987, 1989; Golovanova et al., 2010; Hunt et al., 2017; Shidrang, 2007) and is lacking in vital information for the understanding of some aspects of the technical and economic behaviours of these human groups. The purpose of the present paper is to contribute to the characterization of Epipalaeolithic assemblages in hard animal matter through the study of part of the corpus from Ali Tappeh (east of the Alborz range, Iran). This site is one of the most important sites in the southeastern area of the Caspian Sea, which is still a poorly documented region from a chronological and cultural perspective. Furthermore, the assemblage in hard animal material from this site is particularly well preserved. For this reason, it is one of the most interesting contexts for beginning research on the exploitation of these materials. These archaeological materials are studied here using an innovative approach for Middle Eastern assemblages: from a technological and use-wear point of view.

birds were also part of the diet (Darabi, 2015; Daujat and Mashkour, 2017; Daujat et al., 2016; Mashkour et al., 2010, 2016; Moradi et al., 2016; Roustaei and Mashkour, 2016; Vigne, 2011). In the Levant, during this period, the faunal assemblage shows that a steady decline in large game occurred from the early Epipalaeolithic, with an increase in small game and gazelles in the final phase, the Natufian (Martin et al., 2016; Munro, 2004; Stiner et al., 1999; Stutz et al., 2009). The known Epipalaeolithic lithic industries from the Levant and the Zagros region are quite similar and mark a change from non-geometric microlith assemblages to geometric tool types. The earliest phase of the Epipalaeolithic in the region is characterized by the production of backed bladelets, which gradually changes to scalene triangles and ultimately in later phases into other types of geometrics such as trapezes and lunates, particularly in cultures such as the Natufian in the Levant. The production of geometric microliths is characterized by the use of the microburin technique and different frequencies of other tools, such as thumbnail scrapers, borers, notches and denticulates (Bar-Yosef, 1970; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 2010; Belfer-Cohen, 1991; Kadowaki and Nishiaki, 2016; Kaufman, 1995; MacDonald, 2013; Olszewski, 1993a, 1993b, 1994, 2012; Smith, 1986). Furthermore, the use of ground stone tools as percussive, pounding and grinding tools during this period has only recently been studied from a functional point of view, which allows for a better understanding of the exploitation of plant resources (Dubreuil and Nadel, 2015; Eitam, 2010). The industry in osseous and shell materials is also relatively well known, but not consistently throughout the geographical area of interest here. Over the past decades, the technological and economical aspects of assemblages in hard animal materials have been well identified in archaeological contexts in the Levant and Anatolia (Baysal, 2013a, 2017; Boyd, 1996; Campana, 1989; Le Dosseur, 2008; Stordeur, 1991). This research focuses on the study of worked osseous tools and personal ornaments, and applies different analytic methods comprising taphonomical, technological and use-wear analysis (Bar-Yosef Mayer, 2005; Bar-Yosef Mayer et al., 2010; Le Dosseur and Maréchal, 2013; Valla et al., 2004; Yeshurun et al., 2016). The differences between Epipalaeolithic and early Neolithic assemblages are also discussed, in order to identify the indications of change in association with the major transformations occurring during Neolithisation, between the final Pleistocene and the first Holocene (Bar-Yosef Mayer, 1991; Le Dosseur, 2008; Ridout-Sharpe, 2015). These data show that osseous and shell assemblages do not only display some regional characteristics, but also technical and functional particularities depending on their chronology (Le Dosseur, 2008). On the Iranian plateau and in the surrounding areas, the main sites providing information on the exploitation of hard animal material resources are divided into three geographical areas: Zagros, the Caucasus and Alborz. The Epipalaeolithic industry is composed of punches, spikes and double points, sometimes incised needles, spearheads, pendants and beads in bone and shell material (Bar-Yosef et al., 2011; Campana, 1989; Coon, 1951; Golovanova et al., 2010, 2014; Hunt et al., 2017; Nioradze and Otte, 2000; Solecki et al., 2004; Valla, 2015). During the early phases, the presence of plaques decorated with geometric patterns is recorded in some sites (Bar-Yosef et al., 2011). The recent study of the assemblage in hard animal materials from Mezmaiskaya Cave, located in the Caucasus, identified the technical differences between Upper Palaeolithic and Epipalaeolithic production (Golovanova et al., 2010, p. 309, 2014). The cave yielded an assemblage of hard animal material in bone, tooth and shell, composed of tools (points, punches, needles, polishers and decorated objects) and ornamental objects (pendants and beads). The material discovered in layers 1–3 and 1–4, which was assigned to Epipalaeolithic phases, consists of pointed objects with a flattened circular section, a needle perforated at one end with a rectangular section, a smoother and ornaments made from small terrestrial gastropods and teeth. The study of transformation techniques identified two different transformation procedures for the perforation of ornamental and domestic objects for

2. Research background and materials 2.1. Ali Tappeh Cave Ali Tappeh Cave is located at the foot of the Alborz Mountains, facing the coastal plain at the southeast of the Caspian Sea (Fig. 1.1). It was discovered in 1962 and excavated by C.B.M. McBurney during two campaigns, in 1963 and 1964. The internal area of the cave is 18 × 5 m, in which two soundings were excavated (Fig. 1.2). The first sounding, Pit C, is located near the west wall of the cave and the second, composed of Pits A, B and another area generically called “Sounding”, is located in the central part of the cave. The 1963 operations, included the excavation of the “Sounding” and in particular, the more recent layers relating to historical phases and the Iron Age. The following year, the excavation of the “Sounding” and pits A, B and C was finished, revealing the oldest phases, corresponding to the Epipalaeolithic sequence. Twenty-three levels were identified and investigated during two campaigns, and several dates were obtained from bone, shell and charcoal samples (Hedges et al., 1994; McBurney, 1964; McBurney and Payne, 1968). The Epipalaeolithic age corresponding to the earliest occupation phase, BM-2726 and BM-2727 (Hedges et al., 1994), and the most recent phases, GX-0699 and GX-0700 (McBurney and Payne, 1968, p. 396), indicate that the cave was visited and occupied between c. 13450 and 11750 cal. BP (Table 1). A large number of lithic artefacts and faunal remains were discovered during the excavations of Ali Tappeh Cave (McBurney and Payne, 1968; Uerpmann and Frey, 1981). The lithic assemblage is characterized by the production of two types of blanks, including some rough and coarse blades and flakes, accompanied by a remarkably refined and distinctive production of standardized micro-blades. The most frequent tool types are notches/denticulates and retouched blades and flakes, most of which bear microwear traces resulting from work on narrow wooden shafts. Other significant lithic tool types include end scrapers, which tend to decrease in size throughout the stratigraphy, and backed blades and geometrics, which show some similarities with the Zarzian in the Zagros. In general, the Ali Tappeh microliths are represented by blunt-backed microlithics and particularly pointed 138

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 21 (2018) 137–157

L. Manca et al.

Fig. 1. 1. Map showing the location of Ali Tappeh Cave (white dot) and two shoreline lines 50 and 400 m Below Oceanic Level (based on Kakroodi et al., 2015, Fig. 1A). During the final Pleistocene and the early Holocene, the Caspian Sea shoreline was 53 m Below Oceanic Level. 2. Plan of Ali Tappeh Cave with the location of the soundings excavated in 1963 and 1964 (modified from McBurney and Payne, 1968, p. 387). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

adornments were obtained by perforating incisor roots (Fig. 2.5). Technical observations of both types of perforations show “drilled” perforations on some needles and tooth pendants (Fig. 2.8), and “engraved” perforations on other needles (Fig. 2.12 and 14).

microliths, scalene triangles, truncated geometrics, angular-backed bladelets and very small straight-backed bladelets (McBurney and Payne, 1968, Fig. 7, p. 400). Regarding the faunal remains, the species recorded in Ali Tappeh Cave are the gazelle (Gazella subgutturosa), which is the dominant species, the mouflon (Ovis vignei) and occasional remains of aurochs (Bos primigenius), hemione (Equus hemionus), boar (Sus scrofa), fox (Vulpes vulpes) and seal (Pusa caspica) (Uerpmann and Frey, 1981, Table 2, p. 151). In addition, birds, small rodents, insectivores, reptiles and various species of molluscs are represented (McBurney and Payne, 1968, p. 396–397). This faunal spectrum corresponds to the spectrum highlighted in the various Epipalaeolithic sites of the south-eastern part of the Caspian Sea. The dominance of gazelles, but also the presence of hemiones, indicate a steppic environment. Conversely, the aurochs and the boar point to a more covered environment, while the birds characterize varied biotopes (Mashkour et al., 2010). During the excavation of Ali Tappeh, several remains in hard animal materials were found. McBurney did not record the exact number of these remains, nor describe their morphological details, but he defined the general characteristics of the assemblage (McBurney and Payne, 1968, p. 405). Bone, probable antler and tooth were worked for the production of tools and ornaments (Fig. 2). The main artefacts are fully shaped needles with a perforation at one end (Fig. 2.10 and 14), fragments of points (Fig. 2.2), projectile tips and spatulas (Fig. 2.1). The

2.2. The collection The set of artefacts conserved at the National Museum of Iran is composed of 18 pieces, four produced from bone and 14 from shell (13 Cardiidae family bivalves and one Enidae gastropod). Among these, two bone and two shell items were not included in the assemblage of hard animal materials. The two osseous remains, interpreted as needles during excavation or post-excavation operations, are small mammal long bones (probably ribs) with no transformation marks or signs of use. This absence of technical marks and traces of use also applies to the two shell pieces, a Cardiidae bivalve (AT 8), and an Enidae gastropod (AT 7f). In addition, the edges of the bivalve show fresh fractures that prevent us from assessing the reasons for its presence at the site (food consumption? tool?), even though the use of these valves for artisanal purposes is attested in the assemblage. Conversely, for the second shell item, we have no evidence of the exploitation of this family of molluscs by the Epipalaeolithic groups that visited or occupied Ali Tappeh Cave. On the one hand, it is clear that these gastropods have no food value; on the other hand, their presence in palaeo-sediments may result from 139

140

B8

Sg 12 B7 A15 A13

A10

A1 A2 A6 A7

63/16

GX-0694

GX-0695

GX-0696

GX-0697

GX-0699

GX-0689

a

Charcoal

Charcoal

11380 = 410

11240 ± 360

10780 ± 320

12510 ± 380

11460 ± 370

11330 ± 410

11640 ± 410

12430 ± 600 10315 = 410

10520 ± 410

10180 ± 110

Calibration program: OxCal 4.3 (Reimer et al., 2013).

GX-0700

Charcoal

Charcoal

Charcoal

Charcoal

Charcoal

Charcoal Wood and? charcoal

Wood and? charcoal

C21 A22a A23a C17 Sg. 14a B11

GX-0691

GX-0692 GX-0693

Charcoal

15201–14758; 15322–14353

12630 ± 110

13696–13684/13609–12786; 14430–12418

13418–12753; 13971–12513/12503–12422

13071–12378/12330–12305/12276–12239; 13356–11750

15294–14079; 15940–13707/13670–13630

13737–12970; 14312–12635

13563–12754; 14339–12381/12272–12241

15498–13756; 16496–13195 12602–11597/11556–11473/11444–11408; 13042–11067/11019–11008/10960–10862/ 10852–10795 14018–13068; 14837–12719

12807–12602; 13000–12530/12455–12444 12645–12380/12325–12309/12273–12240; 12686–12111 12080–11615; 12379–12329/12307–12275/ 12240–11390/11376–11356 12795–11713; 13211–11200

13698–13683/13611–13389; 13743–13303

11680 ± 110

Marine shell Didacna cf. trigonoides Marine shell Didacna cf. trigonoides Charcoal Charcoal

10800 ± 120 10520 ± 100

13371–12991; 13481–12755

11300 ± 190

?

13291–12875; 13461–12724

15259–13819; 16094–13407

Calibrated dataa BP (1 σ 68.2%; 2 σ 95.4%)

11240 ± 210

12410 ± 480

Uncalibrated data C yr

14

?

OxA-3192 A4

OxA-3194 A17a OxA-3190 C11

OxA-3193 C15

First phase of occupation BM-2727 First phase of occupation OxA-3191 Sg9

BM-2726

Charcoal

GX-0690

A26a

Material dated

Code data Context/layer

Table 1 Ali Tappeh chronological framework of the site.

Geochron, 1965 (McBurney and Payne, 1968).

“Dissolved completely in NaOH; precipitate only dated, hence may contain later carbon” (McBurney and Payne, 1968, p. 395).

NaOH; precipitate only dated, hence may contain and Payne, 1968, p. 395). NaOH; precipitate only dated, hence may contain and Payne, 1968, p. 395). NaOH; precipitate only dated, hence may contain and Payne, 1968, p. 395). NaOH; precipitate only dated, hence may contain and Payne, 1968, p. 395). NaOH; precipitate only dated, hence may contain and Payne, 1968, p. 395).

“Dissolved completely in later carbon” (McBurney “Dissolved completely in later carbon” (McBurney “Dissolved completely in later carbon” (McBurney “Dissolved completely in later carbon” (McBurney “Dissolved completely in later carbon” (McBurney

Sample treated with HCI and NaOH (McBurney and Payne, 1968). “Dissolved completely in NaOH; precipitate only dated, hence may contain later carbon” (McBurney and Payne, 1968, p. 395). Sample may be contaminated with later carbon (McBurney and Payne, 1968). “Dissolved completely in NaOH; precipitate only dated, hence may contain later carbon” (McBurney and Payne, 1968, p. 395). “Dissolved completely in NaOH; precipitate only dated, hence may contain later carbon” (McBurney and Payne, 1968, p. 395).

Oxford, 1991 (Hedges et al., 1994).

/

Geochron, 1965 (McBurney and Payne, 1968).

Geochron, 1965 (McBurney and Payne, 1968).

Geochron, 1965 (McBurney and Payne, 1968).

Geochron, 1965 (McBurney and Payne, 1968).

Geochron, 1965 (McBurney and Payne, 1968).

Geochron, 1965 (McBurney and Payne, 1968).

Geochron, 1965 (McBurney and Payne, 1968).

Geochron, 1965 (McBurney and Payne, 1968). Geochron, 1965 (McBurney and Payne, 1968).

Oxford, 1991 (Hedges et al., 1994)

Oxford, 1991 (Hedges et al., 1994). Oxford, 1991 (Hedges et al., 1994).

Oxford, 1991 (Hedges et al., 1994).

British Museum (Hedges et al., 1994).

British Museum (Hedges et al., 1994).

Geochron, 1965 (McBurney and Payne, 1968).

Laboratory, data of submission of samples and bibliographical references

A correction factor (ΔR = 34 ± 35 yrs), obtained from Cheleken Peninsula, has been applied to this result (Marine Reservoir Correction; Kuzmin et al., 2007). A correction factor (ΔR = 34 ± 35 yrs), obtained from Cheleken Peninsula, has been applied to this result (Marine Reservoir Correction; Kuzmin et al., 2007). / /

/

Sample treated with HCI and NaOH (McBurney and Payne, 1968). Sample “which must now be viewed as unreliable” (Hedges et al., 1994, p. 349). /

Remarks

L. Manca et al.

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 21 (2018) 137–157

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 21 (2018) 137–157

L. Manca et al.

Fig. 2. Hard animal material assemblage from Ali Tappeh. The items AT1 and AT2 are not included in this picture (modified from McBurney and Payne, 1968, plates XXIX-XXX).

“refitting by default” was applied for this study. This method is based on the mental reconstruction of debitage and operational chains (Averbouh, 2000, 2001). It involves taking into consideration all the products derived from working hard animal materials (from by-products to the finished objects as well as blanks and rough-outs). Each of these products is studied in order to identify the various techniques (via markings), how they were employed, the materials involved, etc., so as to ultimately take all the elements into account in order to try to identify the organization between them. In concrete terms, for each piece it was essential to: identify and characterize the technical phases of the operational chain (debitage, shaping and finishing), recognize the raw materials in terms of species and anatomical parts and determine the location of the artefact within the block of raw material. With these data, we can detect correlations pointing to common origins within the same type of technical assemblage, and therefore determine different types of by-products theoretically produced during manufacture. Finally, the juxtaposition of these principal criteria considered together (technique, anatomical location, dimensional parameters), for all the different groups of artefacts, concretely determine refitting by default (Averbouh, 2001; for technological terms see Averbouh, 2016). In addition, the current sample from Ali Tappeh was studied using a functional approach. This approach aims to identify the function and operating conditions of the objects, thereby reconstructing the phase relating to artefact use. This approach was developed by Semenov (1964) and aims to identify and explain the traces on the surface of well-preserved materials resulting from contact between two or more materials. The description of use-wear traces is based on two different types of traces: micro-polish and striations (Bradfield, 2015; Evora, 2015; Legrand, 2005; Maigrot, 2003; Mansur et al., 2014; Peltier and Plisson, 1986). The main micro-polish traces and their characterization (location, position, organization, micro-topography, micro-relief, texture, fabric, contouring, extension, and brightness), define the mode of use and the hardness of the worked material. In the same way, the characterization of striations (location, position, organization, orientation, frequency, continuity, morphology and dimensions) indicates the

non-anthropogenic causes or different site formation processes. The remaining 14 pieces composing the main body of the assemblage under study were found in the Pit A and B soundings, excavated in 1964, and in the Sounding (Sg) investigated in 1963. They come from layers 3, 10, 12, 13, 14a, 20a, which are attributed to the Epipalaeolithic based on the absolute dates published by McBurney and Payne (1968) and Hedges et al. (1994) (Tables 1 and 2; Fig. 3). The present studied corpus only represents a small part of the assemblage in hard animal matter found during the excavation, partially published in 1968 (McBurney and Payne, 1968, plates XXIX, XXX) and currently stored in Cambridge. The typo-technological and functional analysis of these artefacts also resulted in the identification of tools and objects of adornment in bone and shell and the reconstruction of the transformation methods of the shell ornament production sequence.

3. Methods of analysis The technological approach applied to the study of this collection was borrowed from ethnology and consists of a “reasoned analysis of techniques” (Inizian et al., 1995); determining the factors involved in making an object: how it was made and how this production was organized into a succession of gestures and the final goals of these gestures. The former assesses the static aspects of the procedures described in terms of large-scale operations. The latter focuses on the dynamics of the process. Here we attempt to understand the sequence of the different actions organized into production phases. Together, these two aspects allow us to reconstruct the operational chains used to transform materials. Furthermore, this type of technological analysis provides us with knowledge that goes beyond the purely technical sphere. We can reconstruct the entire chain of exploitation for a particular material at all stages of the operational chain, taking into consideration the selection, preparation and conservation of the raw material at the beginning of the sequence, and, at the other end, the use, re-working, reuse and ultimate discard of the object. In order to reconstruct the operational sequence, the method of 141

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 21 (2018) 137–157

GX 0694; GX 0695; GX 0696.

0696. 0696. 0696. 0696. 0696. 0696. 0696. GX GX GX GX GX GX GX 0695; 0695; 0695; 0695; 0695; 0695; 0695; GX GX GX GX GX GX GX 0694; 0694; 0694; 0694; 0694; 0694; 0694; GX GX GX GX GX GX GX

4. Results 4.1. Bone industry (AT 1 and AT 21)

12–14: GX 0693; 10–9. 21–20: GX 0699. 21–20: GX 0699. 12–14: GX 0693; 12–14: GX 0693; 12–14: GX 0693; 12–14: GX 0693; 12–14: GX 0693; 12–14: GX 0693; 12–14: GX 0693; 1–3: GX 0690. 1–3: GX 0690. 12–14: GX 0693;

GX 0694; GX 0695; GX 0696.

direction of movement during use. The macroscopic and microscopic observation of the surfaces was carried out with an Insize ism-pm 200 sb portable digital microscope, with magnifications of 10× to 200×. In this way, we were able to identify and characterize the use traces still preserved on the artefacts. These traces were subsequently interpreted by comparison with a reference collection made up of bone and shell remains (Manca, 2013, 2016).

Long bone? Long bone? Valve Valve Valve Valve Valve Valve Valve Valve Valve Valve Valve Valve / / Cardiidae/Didacna cf. trigonoides Cardiidae/Cerastoderma glaucum Cardiidae Cardiidae/Didacna cf. trigonoides Cardiidae/Didacna cf. trigonoides Cardiidae Cardiidae Cardiidae Cardiidae/Didacna cf. trigonoides Cardiidae Cardiidae/Didacna cf. trigonoides Cardiidae/Didacna cf. trigonoides

64/B/12 64/A/10 64/A/20a 64/A/20a 64/A/13 64/A/13 64/Sg/14a 64/Sg/14a 64/Sg/14a 64/Sg/14a 64/Sg/14a 64/B/3 64/B/3 64/B/12

Layers Layers Layers Layers Layers Layers Layers Layers Layers Layers Layers Layers Layers Layers

A finished bone object, fragmented lengthwise on the left edge and transversely on the lower edge, was made on an elongated and probably flattened blank (AT 1, Fig. 4) (residual dimensions: 55 mm long, 5 mm wide; 7 mm thick). The active part is bevelled, located on the distal and oblique part with respect to the main axis of the piece, extending over a length of 18 mm and a width of 5 mm. It forms an angle of about 90° with the upper face and has a regular surface, on which we can still distinguish the topography of a fracture plane, subsequently regularized with longitudinal abrasion (Fig. 4, C). The abrasion striations are long, mostly parallel to each other but also intersecting, with a U-shaped section. On a portion of the right edge, technical marks resulting from the shaping of the piece were identified. These are long, superficial and grainy striations (Fig. 4, A, B, D), parallel to each other with a V-shaped section, made by scraping. On the upper surface, there are deeper striations, with longitudinal orientation and oblique incidence occupying a generally flattened part of the surface, marked by two small grooves containing long and parallel striations, with oblique and grazing incidence (Fig. 4, B, E). The position, extension, extent and organization of these marks correspond to those formed during grooving, probably during debitage operations. The second bone artefact is a fragment of a pointed object or a double point (residual dimensions: 21 mm long, 4 mm wide, 4 mm thick), on which it was only possible to observe technical marks relating to shaping. These longitudinal striations cover the entire area of the piece with the exception of the fragmented lower edge. They are mostly long, superficial, grainy (Fig. 5, B, C) and parallel to each other with a V section. Other deeper and shorter striations are distinctly arranged in clusters with a more oblique orientation. The two groups of striations make it possible to identify the use of the scraping technique. The point is not whole as it presents an oblique fracture, slightly rounded by use (Fig. 5, A). 4.2. Shell corpus (AT 3–AT 10)

Bone Bone Shell Shell Shell Shell Shell Shell Shell Shell Shell Shell Shell Shell

Anatomical parts Family/species

Fragment of bevelled tool (?) Fragment of pointed object Pendant Pendant Waste or potential rough-out Potential raw material block Blank Pendant Waste or potential rough-out Waste or potential rough-out Blank Potential raw material block Scraper/smoother Non-determinable object

The shell corpus is composed of finished objects (four pieces, AT 3, AT 4, AT 7b, AT 9b), blanks (two pieces, AT 7a, AT 7e), waste or potential blanks (four pieces, AT 5, AT 7c, AT 7d, AT 10) and potential raw material blocks (two pieces, AT 6, AT 9a).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7a 7b 7c 7d 7e 9a 9b 10

457 323 707 707 649 649 115 115 115 115 115 241 241 447

4.2.1. Finished objects The finished objects, all obtained from bivalves from the Cardiidae family, consist of three ornaments and a tool classified as a scraper/ smoother. Two of them are on valves where the peripheral parts were probably eliminated by percussion (AT 4 and AT 7b), leaving in one case the central part of the valve comprising a small edge portion (without the umbo and the lateral edges, AT 7b, Fig. 6), and in the other, the part corresponding to the umbo (AT 4, Fig. 7.2). The fracture sections seem to be old, due to a slight rounding of the edges, which is not compatible with a potential natural fragmentation after burial or with accidental fragmentation during the excavation. Thus, the 1 Please refer to Table 2 for the numbering of the artefacts (AT 1, AT 2, AT 3 etc.).

AT AT AT AT AT AT AT AT AT AT AT AT AT AT

Raw material Type of object Num. inv. Num. object

Table 2 Bone and shell artefacts from Epipalaeolithic layers in Ali Tappeh Cave.

Date and layers

Layers and connected code data (see Table 1 for calibrated data).

L. Manca et al.

142

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 21 (2018) 137–157

L. Manca et al.

Fig. 3. Bone (1–2) and shell artefacts (3–14) from the Epipalaeolithic layers of Ali Tappeh Cave (referring to Table 2).

143

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 21 (2018) 137–157

L. Manca et al.

Fig. 4. Technical stigmata preserved on piece AT 1: scraping striations (A, B, D) and grooving striations (B, E); longitudinal abrasion (C).

144

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 21 (2018) 137–157

L. Manca et al.

Fig. 5. Technical stigmata preserved on piece AT 2. Blunt point in the distal part of the piece with some irregularities made by a flexion movement before use (A); straight and longitudinal striations made by scraping (B and C).

physical action of the sea: some parts of the shell are missing, very rounded surfaces, areas with a covering and very intense and homogeneous polishing. The first object has a concave-convex morphology and small dimensions (24 mm long, 6.4 mm wide and 2 mm thick). It did not undergo any changes in its overall morphology and was perforated at one end (Fig. 7.1). The perforation presents a biconvex section (Fig. 7.1, A and B), related to bifacial scraping. The second object, meanwhile, was in contact with an abrasive surface (or a flexible surface with the addition of an abrasive substance) and the dorsal surface is covered by streaks parallel to each other, grouped together, with a parallel and oblique orientation in relation to the main axis of the object (Fig. 8, A). A higher concentration of deeper striations, accompanied by a polish located only on the elevations of the surface, is located on the proximal part of the artefact (Fig. 8, B and C). A substantial part of the ventral surface is covered by long deep, not perfectly rectilinear striations, parallel to each other and oriented

presence of portions of Cardiidae valves with an artificial morphology, interpreted as waste or potential blanks, could confirm the use of percussion for the removal of portions of the valves or could be aimed at obtaining blanks for future perforation. However, we did not observe any impact points that could be confidently linked to the deliberate fracturing of these valves. This hypothesis thus remains open and will be confirmed or invalidated by the analysis of the whole series. The perforations of two adornments present a variable plano-convex (Fig. 6, A, B) or conical section (Fig. 7.2). This diversity is directly related to the use of different techniques and methods: unifacial scraping and percussion. In a single case, the surface of the blank was also regularized by oblique unifacial abrasion in relation to the major axis of the piece (Fig. 6, C, D). The other two finished objects, an object of adornment and the scraper/smoother, are made from fragments of valves collected on the beach. Their aspect is characterized by areas altered and eroded by the 145

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 21 (2018) 137–157

L. Manca et al.

Fig. 6. Technical stigmata preserved on piece AT 7b. Plano-convex cross-section of a hole made by percussion (A) and drill (B); unifacial abrasion, sliced obliquely to the major axis of the piece (C and D).

account of the morphometry of the objects and the species chosen for the blocks of raw material, corresponding to those of the finished objects. In fact, these elements are fragments of Cardiidae valves collected on a beach with sub-elliptic and sub-rectangular morphology. They are between 19 and 18 mm long, 8 and 6 mm wide and 2 and 1.5 mm thick. On the other hand, the technological connection with the production of ornaments comes from the identification of the same techniques: abrasion and scraping are applied in the context of shaping operations; the first technique was used for shaping the contours of the remains, and the second for the perforation of the valves. Oblique striations, located on the upper and lower sides on a shell object (AT 7a) are related to the abrasion of the surfaces (Fig. 9.1, A). These striations are identified on the central and lateral part of the dorsal surface and cover the entire peripheral part of the ventral surface (Fig. 9.1, B). Their (bifacial) location and orientation (oblique and parallel to the major axis of the piece) seem to correspond to the intention to regularize the surface for perforation, for making an

transversely to the main axis of the piece in the proximal part. On the other hand, they are intertwined elsewhere on the surface. The location, orientation, density and depth of the striations allow us to locate one of the active parts on the proximal part and the other in the central portion of the dorsal surface. The object was used with grazing angulation (between 0 and 20°) in relation to the surface with which it came into contact. The absence of abrasion planes, that is flattened portions of the surface and, on the contrary, the persistence of the natural convexity of the valve, suggest that the worked material was not rigid, although the striations undeniably suggest this. It could therefore be a flexible material covered with an abrasive substance, as suggested by the comparison with traces produced during hide scraping. 4.2.2. Rough-outs Rough-outs are technical elements for which the shaping phase has been started but not completed. The two identified rough-outs (AT 7a, AT 7e, Fig. 9) are probably related to the production of ornaments, on 146

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 21 (2018) 137–157

L. Manca et al.

Fig. 7. Technical stigmata and use-wear traces preserved on pieces AT 3 (1) and AT 4 (2). Details of biconical holes (A and B) and use-wear traces located around the hole (C) and on both sides of the perforation: left side (D) and right side (E).

adornment. The small dimensions of this shell rule out the possibility of using it as a tool (e.g. to scrape or to smoothen), due to the absence of a gripping handle space and more importantly the absence of

corresponding traces of use. Scraping for the perforation of valves has already been shown on two pendants (AT 3 and AT 7b; Fig. 7.1 and Fig. 6, B), and also identified on a valve. The striations resulting from 147

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 21 (2018) 137–157

L. Manca et al.

Fig. 8. Technical stigmata and use-wear traces preserved on piece AT 9b. Details of striations made by abrasion and ochre residues located on the dorsal and ventral surfaces (see the online version for colours).

148

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 21 (2018) 137–157

L. Manca et al.

Fig. 9. Technical stigmata preserved on pieces AT 7a (1), AT 7e (2). 1. Details of striations made by abrasion (A and B); 2. Scraping striations indicating attempted perforation (see black arrows in A).

149

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 21 (2018) 137–157

L. Manca et al.

Fig. 10. Pieces identified as probable rough-outs AT 7c (1), AT 7d (2), AT 5 (3), AT 10 (4) and potential blocks of raw material AT 6 (5), AT 9a (6) (see the online version for colours).

4.2.4. Potential raw material blocks or potential blanks In the Ali Tappeh assemblage considered here, two shells with no debitage marks or traces of use were identified (AT 6 and AT 9a, Fig. 10.5–6). If we consider the possible reasons for their presence in Ali Tappeh Cave, two possibilities emerge: either the shells were unintentionally brought to the cave with other raw materials (e.g. sand, plant resources, fish and sea resources); or the shells were intentionally brought to the cave for their aesthetic characteristics and possibly for artisanal purposes. The first possibility is feasible but we must also take into consideration three points concerning the discovery context and technical data: i) there is no evidence for the exploitation of other sea or littoral resources in Ali Tappeh Cave in spite of the use of a series of sieves with decreasing mesh sizes; ii) the presence of shells with the same morphological characteristics (a high degree of natural abrasion) showing marks of working; iii) these shells (Fig. 10.5–6), as well as some pieces identified as potential blanks (Fig. 10.1–3), have a red, dark-brown or black colour; this colour alteration is due to exposure to a source of heat (see the discussion for more information).

this technique are located on the ventral surface and surround a circular depression inside which the surface is irregular and does not present the natural polish present on the remaining part of surface (Fig. 9.2, A). The striations are grouped into two sets, parallel to each other with diverse lengths, widths and thicknesses. The edge of the depression caused by scraping has a convex profile and is quite shallow. These characteristics point to an unsuccessful attempt at perforation.

4.2.3. Potential wastes or blanks Four objects characterized by the presence of fracture planes on one or more edges have been identified as potential wastes or blanks (Fig. 10.1–4). This identification is based on the presence of a finished object with a fracture plane (AT 7b, Fig. 6), which indicates the practice of modifying the dimensions of the blocks of raw material by eliminating part of the shell by percussion, for the manufacture of objects of adornment. In this respect, the four studied objects could be portions of valves discarded during the shaping of the blanks or blanks destined to be perforated. 150

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 21 (2018) 137–157

L. Manca et al.

With regard to shell acquisition, the potential source of these materials is the south-eastern coast of the Caspian Sea, currently located about 12 km away, based on the distance between the site and the coasts of the Gulf of Gorgan. However, this distance requires re-evaluation in relation to the level of the Caspian Sea during the occupation of Ali Tappeh Cave. The most recent research on this subject shows that during the end of the Pleistocene, the Caspian Sea level fell to about 53 m Below Oceanic Level (Rychagov, 1997; Hoogendoorn et al., 2005; Kakroodi et al., 2015), almost quadrupling the distance to access these raw materials (Fig. 1). Two types of shells were selected and used: shells with a relatively fresh aspect (the fragment of Cerastoderma glaucum) and shells that underwent mechanical fragmentation and erosion after the death of the molluscs, due to the rolling of the valves in their original littoral contexts (Didacna cf. trigonoides; Zuschin et al., 2003). For the relatively fresh looking shell, the transformation of the valve may have taken place after the consumption of the mollusc or shortly after the death of mollusc. However, for the first case, we did not observe any technical marks related to opening the bivalves, which can be recognized by the archaeozoological study of the remains. For the shells with evident traces of natural erosion, raw material blocks were exclusively collected for artisanal purposes. In all cases, the presence of these valves at the site of Ali Tappeh is the result of a choice by Epipalaeolithic groups, who considered them to be of aesthetic and symbolic value. In this sense, the chromatic (cream, red and black), morphological (elliptical with rounded edges and almost natural morphology) and dimensional (see Table 3) attributes of the selected (Cardiidae family) species characterize the choices made at the time of collection according to the production aims and the technical skills of the group. The burning of the shells in order to colour the surfaces is suggested by the colouration (red, dark-brown or black) of some shells remains. Similar colour alteration (black colour) has been recorded in some Nassarius beads dated to the Middle Palaeolithic of North Africa (d'Errico et al., 2009). In this latter context, researchers explain this colouration by the controlled heating of the shells in a reducing environment and in association with organic material (d'Errico et al., 2009). This practice was also attested in Cyclope neritea beads from the Upper Palaeolithic and Lower Epipalaeolithic of Greece at Franchthi Cave (Perlès and Vanhaeren, 2010), or in Nassarius gibbosulus ornaments from the Late Epipalaeolithic and Early Neolithic in the Northern Levant, at the site of Abu Hureyra (Ridout-Sharpe, 2015). Furthermore, the presence of red and black Nassarius beads is attested in the Epipalaeolithic and Early Neolithic of Pınarbaşı Cave in Anatolia (Baysal, 2013a, 2013b). The shells of Ali Tappeh appear to have been treated in the same way: their colouration and polishing seem to result from thermal contact. In order to evaluate the intentionality involved in the colouration of these shells, we have to consider the three potential causes of their exposure to heat: accidental burning, food processing and technical and/or aesthetic purposes. Concerning the first point, it is possible to verify the presence of burnt archaeological artefacts in the same layers of shell remains. Neither McBurney and Payne (1968), nor Uerpmann and Frey (1981) record the presence of burnt faunal remains or other burnt archaeological pieces. For the second point, we can reasonably exclude food processing and cooking for the simple reason that the shells were collected dead on the beach. Finally, the technical and/or the aesthetic purpose seems be potentially involved in this transformation, although no coloured shell remains present technical or usewear traces. Nevertheless, we cannot precisely determine the exact purpose of these shells (aesthetic or technical or both?). The shells were subsequently modified by at least three transformation sequences, for which we could only reconstruct a few phases of the production sequence (Fig. 11): the fracturing of shells, probably connected to discoid bead production; direct shaping by regularizing and perforating elliptical raw material blocks for the production of pendants; direct shaping by the perforation of raw material blocks for

Table 3 Measurements of bone and shell artefacts from Ali Tappeh Cave. Number object

AT AT AT AT AT AT AT AT AT AT AT AT AT AT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7a 7b 7c 7d 7e 9a 9b 10

Num. inv.

457 323 707 707 649 649 115 115 115 115 115 241 241 447

Intact specimens

x x x x x x x x x x x

Dimensions (mm)

Dimensions of perforation (mm)

Length

Width

Thickness

Length

Width

55 21 24 15 11,2 18 19 26 14 10,5 18 35 27,4 23

5 4 6,4 18 12 23 8 14 16 11 6 33,2 22,4 17,3

7 4 2 8 2 2,7 2 2,4 2 1,4 1,5 3 2 1

/ / 1,8 5 / / / 2,5 / / / / / /

/ / 1,8 3,6 / / / 2 / / / / / /

While we cannot completely rule out the hypothesis that these shells were initially brought to the cave unintentionally, the above considerations imply that the valves can reasonably be interpreted as potential blanks or potential raw material blocks. Blanks are elements obtained as a result of the debitage phase. They still need to be shaped and, when relevant, completed by a finishing stage to acquire the final aspect of the desired tool. In the case of shells collected after their death from the Ali Tappeh site, the shape of the shells does not need to be modified during debitage because it is ideal as it is. The low degree of shell transformation during shaping, sometimes even the absence of transformation, means that there is a total correspondence between the morphological, metric and structural characteristics of the block and those of the ideal blank, and more directly, of the finished object. 5. Discussion The results obtained from the technological and use-wear analysis of artefacts in hard animal materials from Ali Tappeh contribute to the characterization of Epipalaeolithic societies from a techno-economic point of view. The small number of studied artefacts does not result in the overall characterization of the production dynamics of bone and shell materials. Nevertheless, it is possible to highlight some practices related to acquisition and transformation phases, particularly with regard to shell artefacts. In this way, these data outline a richer framework of the use of hard animal materials, taking into account the known typological data from the literature. 5.1. First techno-economic elements of the Epipalaeolithic assemblage in hard animal materials from Ali Tappeh For the osseous material, which is exclusively documented by bone, the high degree of transformation and fragmentation was not conducive to the determination of the species and the exploited anatomical parts. On the other hand, we were able to identify the techniques used for the transformation of the artefacts: abrasion, scraping and grooving. Abrasion and scraping are documented for the first time, whereas the use of grooving has already been observed during the shaping phase for the perforation of bone needles (McBurney and Payne, 1968). The application of each of these techniques involves the use of lithic tools with an abrasive or sharp active portion. In the case of Ali Tappeh Cave, lithic artefacts potentially adapted to scraping or grooving (medium backed blades, end-scrapers and flakes) may have been used for the transformation of bone materials, but we cannot confirm this hypothesis due to the absence of functional data. 151

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 21 (2018) 137–157

L. Manca et al.

Fig. 11. Reconstruction of the transformation phases of shell artefacts: 1. shell fracturing, probably connected to the production of discoid beads; 2. direct shaping involving the regularization and perforation of elliptical raw material blocks for the production of pendants; 3. direct shaping by perforating raw material blocks for the production of pendants.

the production of pendants. It was possible to infer the direct use of the valves gathered from the beach to soften a soft surface (hide) with the aid of a mineral substance. The presence of shell blanks and blocks of raw material and use-wear traces on the finished objects suggests that they were processed and used on site. Finally, many interactive elements between the hard animal material technical subsystem and other subsystems were identified. In the technical chain of transformation, the identified technical marks show the use of lithic points for the perforation of shells (Figs. 6, 7.1, 9.2) and abrasive surfaces for their abrasion. For the utilization sequence, the traces of use show that the shells were used for hide processing, in association with a mineral substance (ochre).

and stratigraphic cohesion of the shell assemblage. In addition, other shell artefacts scattered in more recent layers (two finished objects from layers 21–20), and in older layers (scraper/smoother from layers 1–3), present technical consistencies (the same exploited species, the use of the same techniques for the transformation of the blocks of raw material), which suggest continuity in technical savoir-faire. In Ali Tappeh, we have no information on the exploitation of marine resources for food purposes, but the presence of other Didacna cf. trigonoides valves is confirmed by two dates on these valves, from the “Sounding”, layer 9, and from Pit C, layer 15, extending over two very wide chronological periods, the first between 13698 and 13683 cal. BP (1 σ), and the second between 15201 and 14758 cal. BP (1 σ; Table 1).

5.2. The hard animal matter assemblage in its archaeological context

5.3. The hard animal matter assemblage in its regional context

As previously mentioned, the chronological attribution of this assemblage is based on the absolute dates obtained for the stratigraphic layers containing artefacts (see part 1.1, Table 2). For the most part, the reconstruction of the shell transformation sequence is based on elements from layers 12–14 of the Sounding, dated to about from 13,000 to 12,100 cal. BP (1 σ; Table 1), reinforcing the idea of the technological

Due to the scarcity of information available in the literature, it is quite difficult to place this production in a broader context. Nevertheless, the bibliographic data on hard animal matter production in Iran and more sporadic comparisons with other neighbouring areas provide a first framework for the exploitation of these raw materials. In the southeast of the Caspian Sea, in the same region as Ali 152

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 21 (2018) 137–157

L. Manca et al.

Shanidar Cave (Hunt et al., 2017). This fragment bears sub-parallel incisions on the internal surface that might suggest its use in a decorative or ornamental context (Hunt et al., 2017, p. 321). In Yafteh Cave, two pointed objects (one point and a spear point fragment) and some ornamental objects made from vestigial deer canines and fossil shells are reported (Otte et al., 2007, Figs. 7 and 8, 1–4, p. 92; Shidrang, 2007, 2018). Furthermore, 39 freshwater gastropods were found in Ghār-e Boof Cave and were considered to be ornamental objects (Conard et al., 2007). Artefacts in hard animal matter were also recovered in the Epipalaeolithic sites of Palegawara and Zarzi, where the exploitation of osseous materials for the production of points and ornaments and the use of shells for the production of ornaments were attested (Hole and Flannery, 1967; Hunt et al., 2017; Solecki et al., 2004, pp. 114–115; Valla, 2015). During the early Neolithic, sites with artefacts in hard animal materials are more frequent (Howe, 1983; Hole, 1977, 2000; Darabi et al., 2011; Tsuneki, 2014; Roustaei et al., 2015; Richardson, 2017). The overwhelming presence of awls and points of various sizes indicates the use of these tools for a wide range of craft activities. However, we also observe the production of a wide variety of other types of artefacts, including bevelled tools, pins, needles, and spatulas. Like for the previous period, information concerning the transformation methods and use of osseous materials are very poor for Iranian contexts, unlike for the Natufian and Neolithic sites in the Near East and the Caucasus areas (Campana, 1987, 1989; Le Dosseur, 2008, 2014; Stordeur, 1991; Taha, 2014; Taha and Le Dosseur, 2017). The exploitation of shells seems to be reserved for the manufacture of ornaments: beads and plaques or pendants. In this respect, the work of Richardson (2017) on the Zagros region highlights the circulation routes of these raw materials between 9000 and 6000 BC. The study of series from several sites (Karim Shahir, Bestansur, Jarmo, Shimshara, and Matarrah) identified the raw materials used for the production of ornaments (beads, plaques and pendants). These raw materials are bird bones and shells, in particular clams, gastropods, tusk and possibly fossilized shells. In the light of these discoveries, the exploitation of animal resources for the production of tools and ornaments is not new during the late Pleistocene and the beginning of the Holocene. From a typological point of view, the production of bone tools from Ali Tappeh is perfectly consistent with the much richer assemblages from that period. Similarly, the exploitation of marine or freshwater resources is confirmed by the presence of shells in the Epipalaeolithic sites of Iran. These raw materials are sometimes brought from remote areas, indicating the circulation of goods from long distances and over a very large geographical area (Bar-Yosef, 2000, p. 610). The exploitation of Didacna valves is also attested during the Epipalaeolithic and the early Neolithic at the site of Jebel (Turkmenistan) (Heit, 2013), showing continuity in the exploitation of these species for the production of ornaments. In this site, Didacna valves seem to have been collected on the beach in tanatocenosis and transformation only consisted in perforation (Okladnikov, 1956, cited by Heit, 2013), just like at the site of Ali Tappeh. A larger number of sites located around the Caspian Sea show the exploitation of these shells during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods. In the Neolithic site of Sang-e Chakhmaq, located southeast of the Caspian Sea, the shell artefacts comprise Neritidae, Dentalium and Didacna shells, which were all used for the production of ornamental objects (Roustaei et al., 2015). As for shell discoid bead production, we saw above that the shape and dimensions of the potential blanks at Ali Tappeh correspond to those involved in the production sequence of these beads (paragraph 3.2.3). The absence of finished objects in the assemblage can be explained by the transport of finished artefacts outside the cave (in the form of necklaces, bracelets, ornaments). In fact, the use of a fine-meshed sieving system during excavations would have facilitated the recovery of small objects (McBurney and Payne, 1968, plate XXVIII). If this hypothesis is confirmed, then this will represent some of the oldest evidence of the production of this type of ornaments. In the Levant, the

Fig. 12. Artefacts in hard animal material from the Epipalaeolithic levels of Belt Cave (from Coon, 1951, plate IX, 7–9; plate X, 1; plate XI, 2–4, 7–8): antler tools (1–3), awls (4–5), tube (6), perforated teeth (7–8) and shell ornaments (9–10).

Tappeh, the transformation of bone material during the Epipalaeolithic period is known from the sites of Komishan (Mashkour, 2004; Mashkour et al., 2010; Vahdati Nasab et al., 2011) and Belt Cave (Coon, 1951, p. 74). Three perforated canines are reported at the first site, while thirteen artefacts in osseous material and twenty shells were found at the second site (levels 11–28 attributed to a Mesolithic occupation). In Belt Cave, two chisels and one celt were made from antler (levels 27 and 13; Fig. 12.1–3), while one spokeshave (level 28), four awls (Fig. 12.4–5), one drill and one tube (level 13; Fig. 12.6) were produced in bone material (Coon, 1951). At the same site, three perforated teeth were found in level 14 (Fig. 12.7–8). Finally, seven land snails were probably used as ornamental objects and fifteen marine bivalve shells (Fig. 12.9–10) were polished, but only one valve was perforated for use as an ornamental object (Coon, 1951, pp. 74, 115, 117). In the Zagros region, archaeological artefacts in hard animal material appear during the Upper Palaeolithic, and more specifically with the Baradostian or the Zagros Aurignacian. Recently, a rectangular fragment of a helicid (probably Assyriella genus) was identified in 153

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 21 (2018) 137–157

L. Manca et al.

production of discoid beads is attested in the final Natufian site of Ain Mallaha (Eynan), which is contemporaneous with the Ali Tappeh site. In Ain Mallaha, one discoid bead was made from a valve of Cerastoderma glaucum and another from a mother of pearl (Bar-Yosef Mayer, 2014; Valla et al., 2004, 2007). Just a little further, at the Late Natufian/Pre-Pottery A Neolithic site of Huzuq Musa (Israel), the usewear analysis of flint perforators and the presence of waste, blanks and discoid shell beads allows for the reconstruction of perforation methods (Groman-Yaroslavski et al., 2013). Furthermore, the same bead manufacturing sequence was observed in Franchthi Cave (Greece) for the Neolithic period (Miller, 1996). In the early phase of the early Neolithic, such evidence is much more widespread, particularly concerning the exploitation of Didacna valves along the shorelines of the Caspian Sea. This is the case for the shell artefacts from the MPS4 Neolithic site (Azerbaijan), which show debitage and shaping phases for discoid bead production. Firstly, the valves were fractured to obtain geometrical blanks (of rectangular or polygonal morphology), which were then regularized into a roundish form by pressing the edges with pointed tools. Afterwards, the central part of the blank was drilled. Finally, the last transformation phase involved the abrasion of the peripheral part of the blank to obtain more regular circular or sub-circular beads (Heit, 2013, 2014, 2017; Lyonnet et al., 2012, pp. 48–50). As shown at other Neolithic sites (Jeitun, Kuba-Sengir), Didacna valves were also used for making elliptical pendants (Heit, 2013, 2017). These data suggest the long-term use of these raw materials - and in any case, continuity between the final Pleistocene and the early Holocene - and limited variability of the ornamental objects (beads, pendants and perforated valves). Finally, the association between shells and ochre is attested at the site of Pinarbasi (Anatolia), where the marine shells are covered with ochre residues (Baysal, 2013b). In the case of Ali Tappeh, the presence of ochre appears to be related to a functional aspect. The use of this material is confirmed by the traces of mineral colouring left on about one-fifth of the grinders and querns (McBurney and Payne, 1968, p. 405).

during the Epipalaeolithic in the Caucasus region. In the current state of knowledge, the assemblage from Ali Tappeh is not an exception. Some technical practices, like the heating of shells and their shaping for abrasion and biconical perforation, are common to other archaeological assemblages in the south Caspian region and also in Anatolia and the Levant. However, the study of a larger number of artefacts is required to refine our knowledge of the technical savoir-faire and techno-economic aspects of these populations. Declarations of interest The authors have not disclosed any potential conflicts of interest. Acknowledgments This research was developed with funding from the National Museum of Natural History of Paris - CNRS, UMR 7209. We would like to thank Dr. Jebrael Nokandeh, Director of the National Museum of Iran, Omolbanin Nahid Ghafoori, head of Department of Research on Pottery, Nayereh Nazari, keeper of the Department of Osteology, and Yousef Hassanzadeh, head of Research Group for their kind support during the study phase in the National Museum of Iran. Thanks also to Sanaz Beizaee Doost and Roya Khazaeli for fruitful exchanges and support during this study. Finally, we wish to thank Patrizia Manca for her help with the translation of some parts of the manuscript into English and Louise Byrne for the final copy-editing. References Arranz-Otaegui, A., Colledge, S., Zapata, L., Teira-Mayolini, L.C., Ibáñez, J.J., 2016. Regional diversity on the timing for the initial appearance of cereal cultivation and domestication in southwest Asia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113 (49), 14001–14006. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1612797113. Asouti, E., Fuller, D.Q., 2011. From foraging to farming in the southern Levant: the development of Epipalaeolithic and Pre-pottery Neolithic plant management strategies. Veg. Hist. Archaeobotany 21, 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-0110332-0. Asouti, E., Fuller, D., 2013. A contextual approach to the emergence of agriculture in Southwest Asia. Curr. Anthropol. 54 (3), 299–345. https://doi.org/10.1086/670679. Averbouh, A., 2000. Technologie de la matière osseuse travaillée et implication palethnologique; l'exemple des chaînes d'exploitation du bois de cervidé chez les magdaléniens des Pyrénées (PhD). Université de Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne (500 p). Averbouh, A., 2001. Methodological specifics of the techno-economic analysis of worked bone and antler: mental refitting and methods of application. In: Choyke, A.M., Bartosiewicz, L. (Eds.), Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies Through Time and Space, Proceedings of the 2nd meeting of the (ICAZ) Worked Bone Research Group Budapest, 31 August–5 September 1999. Br. Archaeol. Rep., Int. S. 937 Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 111–121. Averbouh, A. (Ed.), 2016. Multilingual Lexicon of Bone Industry, Version 2 (FrançaisAnglais-Italien-Espagnol, Allemand, Hongrois, Polonais, Russe, Bulgare, Roumain, Portugais, Danois), GDRE Prehistos Archaeological Studies II, Hors série, Préhistoire de la Méditerranée, (131 p). Bar-Yosef, O., 1970. Epipalaeolithic cultures of Palestine. In: Archaeology. Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem. Bar-Yosef, O., 1975. The Epi-Paleolithic in Palestine and Sinai. In: Wendorf, F., Marks, A.E. (Eds.), Problems in Prehistory: North Africa and the Levant. SMU Press, Dallas, pp. 363–378. Bar-Yosef, O., 1981. In: Cauvin, J., Sanlaville, P. (Eds.), The Epi-Palaeolithic complexes in the Levant. Préhistoire du Levant, CNRS, Paris, pp. 389–408. Bar-Yosef, O., 1987. Late Pleistocene adaptations in the Levant. In: Softer, O. (Ed.), The Pleistocene Old World. Regional Perspectives Plenum Press, New York, pp. 219–236. Bar-Yosef, O., 1998. The Natufian culture in the Levant: threshold to the origins of agriculture. Evol. Anthropol. 6 (5), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)15206505(1998)6:5<159::aid-evan4>3.0.co;2-7. Bar-Yosef, O., 2000. L'Asie occidentale de la fin du paléolithique moyen jusqu'aux débuts de la production de nourriture. In: Julien, C. (Ed.), Histoire de l'humanité. vol. 1. Unesco, pp. 588–623. Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A., 2010. The Levantine Upper Palaeolithic and Epipalaeolithic. In: Garcea, E.A.A. (Ed.), South-Eastern Mediterranean Peoples between 130,000 and 10,000 Years Ago. Oxbow Books (192 p). Bar-Yosef Mayer, D.E., 1991. Changes in the selection of marine shells from the Natufian to the Neolithic. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Valla, F. (Eds.), The Natufian Culture in the Levant, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 629–636. Bar-Yosef Mayer, D.E., 2005. The exploitation of shells as beads in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic of the Levant. In: Desse, J., Desse-Berset, N. (Eds.), Anciennes exploitations des mers et des cours d'eau en Asie du Sud-Ouest. Approches environnementales, Paléorient. 31 (1). pp. 176–185. https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.2005.4796.

6. Conclusions The aim of this work is to describe new aspects of Epipalaeolithic ways of life in and around Iran and to enhance our knowledge of the techno-economic strategies of prehistoric groups. Within this framework, the study of the hard animal matter assemblage from Ali Tappeh Cave, located on the south-eastern shores of the Caspian Sea, is particularly strategic. Firstly, it concerns a relatively poorly known area, which requires more intensified studies on the Epipalaeolithic in order to better date this occupation phase of the territory and to better understand the production systems of these human groups. Secondly, this assemblage is particularly well preserved. Concerning the techno-economic aspects, we observed that the exploitation of marine resources concerns the Cardiidae family of bivalves, collected in tanatocenosis. Valve fragments with an elliptical shape were preferentially gathered, as they are morphologically adapted to pendant making. The presence of some artefacts with no transformation marks and no traces of use, interpreted as potential blocks of raw material, could suggest that only some of the shells collected and transported to Ali Tappeh Cave were subsequently transformed. Nevertheless, we showed that the entire transformation sequence took place on site. The techniques and processes used to transform bone and shell raw materials reflect a structured production organized into three transformation sequences, at least in the case of shells. Based on the identification of artefacts in other hard animal materials in Iran and the neighbouring areas, we can propose some considerations on the exploitation methods of these remains. Bones and shells were exploited since the Upper Palaeolithic, but artefacts in hard animal material show biconical perforation (drilled from both sides) 154

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 21 (2018) 137–157

L. Manca et al.

subsistence in the central Anatolian highlands: new evidence from Pınarbaşı, Karaman Province, central Anatolia. J. Archaeol. Sci. 41, 801–812. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jas.2013.09.024. Garrod, D.A.E., 1930. The Palaeolithic of southern Kurdistan: excavations in the caves of Zarzi and Hazar Merd. Bull. Am. Sch. Prehist. Res. 6, 8–43. Garrod, D.A.E., 1932. A new Mesolithic industry: the Natufian of Palestine. J. R. Anthropol. Soc. 62, 257–269. Garrod, D.A.E., 1936. A summary of seven seasons work in the Wady Mughara. Bull. Am. Sch. Prehist. Res. 12, 125–129. Golovanova, L.V., Doronichev, V.B., Cleghorn, N.E., 2010. The emergence of boneworking and ornamental art in the Caucasian Upper Paleolithic. Antiq. 84, 299–320. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003598x0006659x. Golovanova, L.V., Doronichev, V.B., Cleghorn, N.E., Koulkova, M.A., Sapelko, T.V., Shackley, M.S., Spasovskiy, Y.N., 2014. The Epipalaeolithic of the Caucasus after the Last Glacial Maximum. Quat. Int. 337, 189–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint. 2012.04.034. Goring-Morris, A.N., 1987. At the edge: terminal Pleistocene hunter-gatherers in the Negev and Sinai. In: Br. Archaeol. Rep., Int. S. 361. pp. 526. Groman-Yaroslavski, I., Rosenberg, D., Nadel, D., 2013. A functional investigation of perforators from the Late Natufian/Pre-Pottery Neolithic a site of Huzuk Musa, a preliminary report. In: Borrell, F., Ibáñez, J.J., Molist, M. (Eds.), Stone Tools in Transition: From Hunter-Gatherers to Farming Societies in the Near East. Universitat Autotnoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, pp. 165–176. Harris, D.R. (Ed.), 2010. Origins of Agriculture in Western Central Asia. An Environmental-Archaeological Study. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia. https://doi.org/10.9783/ 9781934536513. (304 p, with contributions from Asouti, E., Bogaard, A., Charles, M., Conolly, J., Coolidge, J., Dobney, K., Gosden, C., Heathcote, J., Jaques, D., Larkum, M., Limbrey, S., Meadows, J., Schlanger, N., Wilkinson, K). Hedges, R.E.M., Housley, R.A., Bronk Ramsey, C., Van Klinken, G.J., 1994. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford ams system: archaeometry datelist 18. Archaeometry 36 (2), 337–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2010.00574.x. Heit, I., 2013. Die neolithische Muschelperlenwerkstatt von Fundstelle MPS 4 (Mil Plain Survey, Aserbaidschan): Archäologische undtechnologische Untersuchungen (Master's dissertation). Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (164 p). Heit, I., 2014. The bead workshop at site MPS4, Mil Plain, Azerbaijan: craft specialisation and the manufacture of shell jewelry in the Neolithic. In: Golani, A., Wygnañska, Z. (Eds.), Beyond Ornamentation. Jewelry as an Aspect of Material Culture in the Ancient Near East. Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean. Pol. Archaeol. In the Mediterr XXIII (2). pp. 21–39 (Special Studies). Heit, I., 2017. Die neolithische Muschelperlenwerkstatt aus Fundstelle MPS 4. Archäologische und technologische Untersuchungen. In: Helwing, B., Aliyev, T., Lyonnet, B., Guliyev, F., Hansen, S., Mirtskhulava, G., The Kura Project (Eds.), New Research on the Later Prehistory of the Southern Caucasus. Archäologie in Iran und Turan 16. Dietrich Reimer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 73–123. Hole, F., 1977. Studies in the Archaeological History of the Deh Luran Plain: The Excavation of Chogha Sefid. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology. 9 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (pp. xiv + 311 + 55 pls. + 119 figs. + 94 tables). Hole, F., 2000. Is Size Important? Function and Hierarchy in Neolithic Settlements. In: Kuijt, I. (Ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation. Kluwer Academic, Plenum Publishers, New York, pp. 191–209. Hole, F., Flannery, V., 1967. The prehistory of Southwest Iran: a preliminary report. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 33, 147–206. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0079497x00014092. Hoogendoorn, R.M., Boels, J.F., Kroonenberg, S.B., Simmons, M.D., Aliyeva, E., Babazadeh, A.D., Huseynov, D., 2005. Development of the Kura delta, Azerbaijan. A record of Holocene Caspian sea-level changes. Mar. Geol. 222-223, 359–380. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2005.06.007. Howe, B., 1983. Karim Shahir. In: Braidwood, L.S., Braidwood, R.J., How, B., Reed, C.A., Watson, P.J. (Eds.), Prehistoric Along the Zagros Flanks. The Oriental institute of the University of Chicago 105. University of Chicago, Chicago, pp. 23–154. Hunt, C.O., Hill, E.A., Reynolds, T., Abdulmutalb, D., Farr, L., Szabó, K., Barker, G., 2017. An incised shell object from Baradostian (Early Upper Palaeolithic) layers in Shanidar Cave, Iraqi Kurdistan. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 14, 318–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jasrep.2017.05.057. Inizian, M.-L., Reduron, M., Roche, H., Tixier, J., 1995. Technologie de la pierre taillée. Meudon, C.R.E.P. (199 p). Kadowaki, S., Nishiaki, Y., 2016. New Epipalaeolithic assemblages from the middle Euphrates and the implications for technological and settlement trends in the northeastern Levant. Quat. Int. 396, 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint. 2015.06.014. Kakroodi, A.A., Leroy, S.A.G., Kroonenberg, S.B., Lahijani, H.A.K., Alimohammadian, H., Boomer, I., Goorabi, A., 2015. Late Pleistocene and Holocene sea-level change and coastal paleoenvironment evolution along the Iranian Caspian shore. Mar. Geol. 361, 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2014.12.007. Kaufman, D., 1995. Microburins and microliths of the Levantine Epipalaeolithic: a comment on the paper by Neely & Barton. Antiq. 69 (263), 375–381. https://doi.org/10. 1017/s0003598x00064784. Kuzmin, Y.V., Nevesskaya, L.A., Krivonogov, S.K., Burr, G.S., 2007. Apparent 14C ages of the 'pre-bomb' shells and correction values (R, DR) for Caspian and Aral Seas (Central Asia). Nucl. Inst. Methods Phys. Res. B 259 (1), 463–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. nimb.2007.01.187. Le Dosseur, G., 2008. La place de l'industrie osseuse dans la Néolithisation au Levant Sud. Paléorient 34 (1), 59–89. https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.2008.5233. Le Dosseur, G., 2014. The production of rods in the Levant: variability of the methods used during the Neolithization. In: Averbouh, A., Margarit, M., Le Dosseur, G. (Eds.), Prehistoric Exploitation of Hard Animal Material. An Overview of the Exploitation of

Bar-Yosef Mayer, D.E., 2014. Temporal changes in shell bead technologies based on Levantine examples. In: Szabó, K., Dupont, C., Dimitrijević, V., Gómez Gastélum, L., Serrand, N. (Eds.), Archaeomalacology: Shells in the Archaeological Record. B. Archaeol. Rep., Int. Ser 2666. pp. 91–100. Bar-Yosef Mayer, D.E., Gümüs, B., İslamoğlu, Y., 2010. Fossil hunting in the Neolithic: shells from the Taurus Mountains at Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Geoarchaeology 25 (3), 375–392. Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A., Mesheviliani, T., Jakeli, N., Bar-Oz, G., Boaretto, E., Goldberg, P., Kvavadze, E., Matskevich, Z., 2011. Dzudzuana: an Upper Palaeolithic cave site in the Caucasus foothills (Georgia). Antiq. 85 (328), 331–349. https://doi. org/10.1017/s0003598x0006779x. Baysal, E.L., 2013a. Epipalaeolithic marine shell beads at Pınarbaşı. Central Anatolia from an Eastern Mediterranean perspective. Anatolica 39, 261–276. https://doi.org/10. 2143/ANA.39.0.2990790. Baysal, E.L., 2013b. A tale of two assemblages: Early Neolithic manufacture and use of beads in the Konya plain. Anatol. Stud. 63, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/ s006615461300001x. Baysal, E.L., 2017. Material culture reconsidered: personal adornment and the conceptualization of boundaries in the Epipalaeolithic. In: Baysal, E.L., Karakatsanis, L. (Eds.), Bordered Places-bounded Times, Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Turkey. BIAA Monograph Series 51. British Institute at Ankara, pp. 15–26. Belfer-Cohen, A., 1991. The Natufian in the Levant. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 20, 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.20.1.167. Biglari, F., 2012. The development of the Paleolithic archaeology in Iran, a review. In: Hassanzadeh, Y., Miri, S. (Eds.), Eighty Years of Iranian Archaeology. Pazineh Publication, National Museum of Iran and Iranian Center for Archaeological Research, Tehran, pp. 7–48 (In Persian with English abstract). Biglari, F., Shidrang, S., 2016. New evidence of Paleolithic occupation in the Western Zagros foothills: preliminary report of cave and rockshelter survey in the Sar Qaleh Plain in the West of Kermanshah Province, Iran. In: Kopanias, K., MacGinnis, J. (Eds.), The Archaeology of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq and Adjacent Regions. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 29–48. Boyd, B., 1996. An Examination of Bone Artefacts From the Later Epipalaeolithic (Natufian) Levant (Unpublished PhD dissertation). University of Cambridge. Bradfield, J., 2015. Use-trace analysis of bone tools: a brief overview of four methodological approaches. S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 70 (201), 3–14. Campana, D.V., 1987. The manufacture of bone tools in the Zagros and the Levant. MASCA J. 4 (3), 110–123. Campana, D.V., 1989. Natufian and Protoneolithic bone tools: the manufacture and use of bone implements in the Zagros and the Levant. Br. Archaeol. Rep. 494-495 (156 p). Colledge, S., Conolly, J., 2010. Reassessing the evidence for the cultivation of wild crops during the Younger Dryas at Tell Abu Hureyra, Syria. Environ. Archaeol. 15 (2), 124–138. https://doi.org/10.1179/146141010x12640787648504. The origins and spread of domestic animals in Southwest Asia and Europe. In: Colledge, S., Conolly, J., Dobney, K., Manning, K., Shennan, S. (Eds.), UCL Institute of Archaeology Publications, Walnut Creek, California. Left Coast Press (354 p). Conard, N.J., Ghasidian, E., Heydari, S., Naderi, R., Zeidee, M., 2007. The 2006 season of the Tübingen Iranian stone age research project in the provinces of Fars and Markazi. The Iranian Center for Archaeological Research, Tehran. Archaeol. Rep. 7, 43–67. Conolly, J., Colledge, S., Dobney, K., Vigne, J.-D., Peters, J., Stopp, B., Manning, K., Shennan, S., 2011. Meta-analysis of zooarchaeological data from SW Asia and SE Europe provides insight into the origins and spread of animal husbandry. J. Archaeol. Sci. 38 (3), 538–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2010.10.008. Coon, C.S., 1951. Cave Explorations in Iran 1949 (Museum Monographs). Philadelphia (PA), University Museum. University of Pennsylvania (125 p). Darabi, H., 2015. An introduction to the Neolithic revolution of the central Zagros, Iran. Br. Archaeol. Rep. 2746, 124. Darabi, H., Naseri, R., Young, R., Fazeli Nashli, H., 2011. The absolute chronology of East Chia Sabz, a Pre-Pottery Neolithic site in Western Iran. In: Doc. Preist. XXXVIII. pp. 255–265. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.38.20. Daujat, J., Mashkour, M., 2017. Faunal remains from Middle Neolithic Site of Qaleh Rostam. In: Mashkour, M., Beech, M.K. (Eds.), Archaeozoology of the Near East 9, Proceedings of the 2008 Al Ain-Abu Dhabi Conference. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 41–58. Daujat, J., Mashkour, M., Emery-Barbier, A., Neef, R., Bernbeck, R., 2016. Qale Rostam: Reconsidering the “Rise of a Highland Way of Life”. An integrated bioarchaeological analysis. In: Roustaei, K., Mashkour, M. (Eds.), The Neolithic of the Iranian Plateau. Recent Research and Prospects, Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment. SENEPSE Series Ex-oriente, Berlin, pp. 108–136. d'Errico, F., Vanhaeren, M., Barton, N., Bouzouggar, A., Mienis, H., Richter, D., Hublin, J.J., McPherron, S.P., Lozouet, P., 2009. Additional evidence on the use of personal ornaments in the Middle Palaeolithic of North Africa. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106 (38), 16051–16056. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903532106. Dubreuil, L., Nadel, D., 2015. The development of plant food processing in the Levant: insights from use-wear analysis of Early Epipalaeolithic ground stone tools. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 370 (1682), 20140357. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014. 0357. Eitam, D., 2010. Late Epipalaeolithic rock-cut installations and groundstone tools in the Southern Levant. Paléorient 35 (1), 77–104. https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.2009. 5279. Evora, M., 2015. Use-wear methodology on the analysis of osseous industries. In: Marreiros, J.M., Gibaja Bao, J.F., Bicho Nuno, F. (Eds.), Use-wear and Residue Analysis in Archaeology. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08257-8_8. (Chapter 8, Coll. Manuals in Archaeological Method, Theory and Technique). Fairbairn, A.S., Jenkins, E., Baird, D., Jacobsen, G., 2014. 9th millennium plant

155

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 21 (2018) 137–157

L. Manca et al.

1525/ap3a.1993.4.1.199. Olszewski, D.I., 1993b. The Zarzian occupation at Warwasi Rockshelter. In: Olszewski, D.I., Dibble, H.L. (Eds.), The Paleolithic Prehistory of the Zagros Taurus. University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia, pp. 206–236. Olszewski, D.I., 1994. The Late Epipaleolithic chipped stone “heritage” in Early aceramic Neolithic assemblages in the Northern Fertile Crescent. In: Gebel, H.G., Kozłowski, S.K. (Eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent. Ex Oriente, Berlin, pp. 83–90. Olszewski, D.I., 2012. The Zarzian in the context of the Epipalaeolithic Middle East. Int. J. Hum. 19 (3), 1–20. Olszewski, D.I., 2014. Middle East: Epipalaeolithic. In: Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, pp. 4922–4929. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_682. Otte, M., Biglari, F., Flas, D., Shidrang, S., Zwyns, N., Mashkour, M., Naderi, R., Mohaseb, A., Hashemi, N., Darvish, J., Radu, V., 2007. The Aurignacian in the Zagros region: new research at Yafteh Cave, Lorestan, Iran. Antiq. 81, 82–96. https://doi.org/10. 1017/s0003598x00094850. Peltier, A., Plisson, H., 1986. Micro-tracéologie fonctionnelle sur l'os: quelques résultats expérimentaux. In: Patou Mathis, M. (Ed.), Outillage peu élaboré en os et en bois de cervidés II. Artefacts 3. pp. 69–80. Perlès, C., Vanhaeren, M., 2010. Black Cyclope neritea marine shell ornaments in the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of Franchthi (Argolid, Greece): arguments for an intentional heat treatment. J. Field Archaeol. 35 (3), 298–309. https://doi.org/10. 1017/s0003598x00064784. Phillips, J.L., Mintz, E., 1977. The Mushabian. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Phillips, J.L. (Eds.), Prehistoric Investigations in Gebel Meghara, Northern Sinai, Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology, Qedem. 7. Hebrew University press, Jerusalem, pp. 149–183. Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Buck, C.E., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P.M., Guilderson, T.P., Haflidason, H., Hajdas, I., Hatté, C., Heaton, T.J., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.F., Kromer, B., Manning, S.W., Niu, M., Reimer, R.W., Richards, D.A., Scott, E.M., Southon, J.R., Turney, C.S.M., van der Plicht, J., 2013. IntCal13 and MARINE13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55 (4), 1869–1887. https://doi.org/10.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16947. Richardson, A., 2017. Neolithic materials and materiality in the foothills of the Zagros Mountains. In: Pereira, T., Terradas, X., Bicho, N. (Eds.), The Exploitation of Raw Materials in Prehistory: Sourcing, Processing and Distribution. Cambridge scholars Publishing, pp. 507–519. Ridout-Sharpe, J., 2015. Changing lifestyles in the northern Levant: Late Epipalaeolithic and early Neolithic shells from Tell Abu Hureyra. Quat. Int. 390, 102–116. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.11.041. Riehl, S., Zeidi, M., Conard, N., 2013. Emergence of agriculture in the foothills of the Zagros Mountains of Iran. Science 341 (6141), 65–67. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.1236743. Roustaei, K., Mashkour, M. (Eds.), 2016. The Neolithic of the Iranian Plateau. Recent research and prospects, studies in early near eastern production, subsistence and environment. SENEPSE Series 18 Ex-oriente, Berlin (119 p). Roustaei, K., Mashkour, M., Tengberg, M., 2015. Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq and the beginning of the Neolithic in North-east Iran. Antiq. 89 (345), 573–595. https://doi. org/10.15184/aqy.2015.26. Rychagov, G.I., 1997. Holocene oscillations of the Caspian Sea, and forecasts based on palaeogeographical reconstructions. Quat. Int. 41-42, 167–172. https://doi.org/10. 1016/s1040-6182(96)00049-3. Semenov, S.A., 1964. Prehistoric Technology: An Experimental Study of the Oldest Tools and Artefacts From Traces of Manufacture and Wear. Cory, Adams and Mackay, London (211 p). Shidrang, S., 2007. The Early Upper Paleolithic ornamental objects from Yafteh Cave and Pa-Sangar Rockshelter, Lurestan. Iran. J. Archaeol. Hist. 21 (41), 38–44 (In Farsi, with an English abstract). Shidrang, S., 2018. The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in the Zagros: the appearance and evolution of the Baradostian. In: Nishiaki, Y., Akazawa, T. (Eds.), The Middle and Upper Paleolithic Archeology of the Levant and Beyond. Replacement of Neanderthals by Modern Humans Series, Tokyopp. 133–156. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-981-10-6826-3_10. Smith, P.E.L., 1986. Paleolithic archaeology in Iran. In: The American Institute of Iranian Studies Monographs. The University Museum, Philadelphia (111 p). Solecki, R.S., Solecki, R.L., Agelarakis, A.P., 2004. The Proto-Neolithic Cemetery in Shanidar Cave. Texas A&M University Press, College Station (TX) (234 p). Stiner, M.C., Munro, N.D., Surovell, T.A., Tchernov, E., Bar-Yosef, O., 1999. Palaeolithic population growth pulses evidenced by small animal exploitation. Sci. 283 (5399), 190–194. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.283.5399.190. Stordeur, D., 1991. Le Natoufien et son évolution à travers les artefacts en os. In: BarYosef, O., Valla, F.R. (Eds.), The Natufian Culture in the Levant. Ann Arbor International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 1. pp. 457–482 (Michigan). Stutz, A.J., Munro, N., Bar-Oz, G., 2009. Increasing the resolution of the broad spectrum revolution in the southern Levantine Epipalaeolithic (19–12 ka). J. Hum. Evol. 56 (3), 294–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2008.10.004. Taha, B., 2014. A preliminary study on the Neolithic bone tools from Kamiltepe (Azerbaijan, Caucasus). In: Averbouh, A., Margarit, M., Le Dosseur, G. (Eds.), Prehistoric Exploitation of Hard Animal Material. An Overview of the Exploitation of Hard Animal Materials during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic, Proceedings of the GDRE Prehistos Work-session in Targoviste, Romania, November 2013, Cetatea de Scaun, Targoviste, pp. 43–56. Taha, B., Le Dosseur, G., 2017. Bone tools as records of regional differences during the Neolithic. A preliminary comparative study between the bone industries at Mentesh

Hard Animal Materials during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic, Proceedings of the GDRE Prehistos Work-session in Targoviste, Romania, November 2013, Cetatea de Scaun, Targoviste, pp. 19–41. Le Dosseur, G., Maréchal, C., 2013. Bone ornamental elements and decorated objects of the Natufian from Mallaha. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Valla, F.R. (Eds.), Natufian Foragers in the Levant: Terminal Pleistocene Social Changes in Western Asia, International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, pp. 293–311. Legrand, A., 2005. Nouvelle approche méthodologique des assemblages osseux du Néolithique de Chypre. Entre technique, fonction et culture (Unpublished PhD Dissertation). Paris I University (1396 p). Lyonnet, B., Guliyev, F., Helwing, B., Aliyev, T., Hansen, S., Mirtskhulava, G., 2012. Ancient Kura 2010–2011: the first two seasons of joint field work in the southern Caucasus. In: Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan. Band 44. Dietrich Reimer Verlag Gmbh, Berlin, pp. 1–190 (with the contributions of Astruc, L., BastertLamprichs, K., Bebermeier, W., Becker, F., Benecke, N., Bouquet, L., Bruley-Chabot, G., Courcier, A., D'Anna, M. B., Decaix, A., Fassbinder, J., Fontugne, M., Geitel, F., Goren, A., Hamon, C., Koch, J., Le Dosseur, G., Lincot, A., Link, R., Neef, R., Neumann, D., Ollivier, V., Raymond, P., Ricci, A., Samzun, A., Schorr, S., Schlütz, F., Shillito, L., Ullrich, M., Wahl, J). MacDonald, D.A., 2013. Interpreting Variability through Multiple Methodologies: The Interplay of Form and Function in Epipalaeolithic Microliths. University of Toronto, PhD dissertation (283 p). Maigrot, Y., 2003. Etude technologique et fonctionnelle de l'outillage en matières dures animales: la station 4 de Chalain (Néolithique final, Jura, France) (Phd Dissertation). Paris I University (284 p). Manca, L., 2013. Fonctionnement des sociétés de la fin du Néolithique au début de l'âge du Cuivre en Sardaigne. Une approche inédite à partir de l'étude des productions en matières dures animales (PhD dissertation). Provence University (764 p). Manca, L., 2016. The shell industry in Final Neolithic societies in Sardinia: characterizing the production and utilization of Glycymeris da Costa 1778 valves. Anthropozoologica 51 (2), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.5252/az2016n2a6. Traceology today: methodological issues in the Old World and the Americas. In: Mansur, M.E., Lima, M.A., Maigrot, Y. (Eds.), Proceedings of the XVI World Congress of the International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Session XXXV. Br. Archaeol. Rep., Int. S 6. pp. 2643 (96 p). Marks, A.E., 1977. Prehistory and Palaeoenvieonments in the Central Negev, Israel, Vol. H. The Avdat/Agev Area, Part 2. SMU Press, Dallas. Martin, L., Edwards, Y., Roe, J., Garrard, A., 2016. Faunal turnover in the Azraq Basin, eastern Jordan 28,000 to 9000 cal yr BP, signaling climate change and human impact. Quat. Res. 86 (2), 200–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yqres.2016.07.001. Mashkour, M., 2004. Annexe 5. Preliminary analysis of the Komishan Cave Epipalaeolithic/Neolithic faunal assemblage. In: Mahforouzi: Preliminary Report of the Archaeological Excavations in Eastern Iran. Archaeol. Rep. ICAR 2. 301 (In Persian). Mashkour, M., Chahoud, J., Mahforouzi, A., 2010. Faunal remains from the Epipalaeolithic site of Komishan cave. J. Iran. Archaeol. 1, 32–37. Mashkour, M., Munoz, O., Biglari, F., Broushaki, F., Abdi, K., Davudi, H., Shennan, S., 2016. S1. Archaeological context. In: Broushaki, F., Thomas, M.G., Link, V., López, S., van Dorp, L., Kirsanow, K., Hofmanová, Z., Diekmann, Y., Cassidy, L.M., Díez-delMolino, D., Kousathanas, A., Sell, C., Robson, H.K., Martiniano, R., Blöcher, J., Scheu, A., Kreutzer, S., Bollongino, R., Bobo, D., Davudi, H., Munoz, O., Currat, M., Abdi, K., Biglari, F., Craig, O.E., Bradley, D.G., Shennan, S., Veeramah, K.R., Mashkour, M., Wegmann, D., Hellenthal, G., Burger, J. (Eds.), Supplementary Materials for Early Neolithic Genomes From the Eastern Fertile Crescent, Sci. 353 (6298). pp. 499–503. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf7943. Matthews, R., Fazeli-Nashli, H., 2013. The Neolithization of Iran. The Formation of New Societies. Oxbow Books, British association for Near eastern archaeology, Oxford, short run press (395 p). Matthews, R., Matthews, W., Mohammadifar, Y. (Eds.), 2013. The Earliest Neolithic of Iran: 2008 Excavations at Skeikh-e Abad and Jani. Central Zagros Archaeological Project. CZAP Reports. vol. 1 Oxbow Books, Oxford and Oakville (249 p). McBurney, C.B.M., 1964. Preliminary report on stone age reconnaissance in north-eastern Iran. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 30, 382–399. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0079497x00015176. McBurney, C.B.M., Payne, R., 1968. The cave of Ali Tappeh and the Epi-Palaeolithic in North-Eastern Iran. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 34, 385–413. https://doi.org/10.1017/ s0079497x00013955. Miller, M., 1996. The manufacture of cockle shell beads at Early Neolithic Franchthi Cave, Greece: a case of craft specialization? J. Mediterr. Archaeol. 9 (1), 7–37. https://doi. org/10.1558/jmea.v9i1.7. Moradi, B., Mashkour, M., Eghbal, H., Mohaseb, A., Ghassimi, T., Rahmati, E., Vahdati, A., Gratuze, B., Tengberg, M., 2016. A short account on Kelek Asad Morad, a PrePottery Neolithic site in Pol-e Dokhtar, Luristan. In: Roustaei, K., Mashkour, M. (Eds.), The Neolithic of the Iranian Plateau. Recent Research and Prospects. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment. SENEPSE series Exoriente, Berlin, pp. 108–136. Munro, N.D., 2004. Zooarchaeological measures of hunting pressure and occupation intensity in the Natufian: implications for agricultural origins. Curr. Anthropol. 45, 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1086/422084. Nioradze, M.G., Otte, M., 2000. Paléolithique supérieur de Géorgie. l'Anthropologie 104, 265–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-5521(00)80047-3. Okladnikov, A., 1956. Pescera Džebel. Trudy Južno-Turkmenistanskoj Archeologičeskoj Ėkspedicii. 7. pp. 11–219. Olszewski, D.I., 1993a. Zarzian microliths from Warwasi Rockshelter, Iran: scalene triangles as arrow components. In: Peterkin, G., Bricker, H., Mellars, P. (Eds.), Hunting and Animal Exploitation in the Later Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of Eurasia, Archaeol. Pap. of the Am. Anthropol. Soc. 4, Washington D.C. pp. 199–205. https://doi.org/10.

156

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 21 (2018) 137–157

L. Manca et al.

Valla, F.R., Khalaily, H., Valladas, H., Kaltnecker, E., Bocoquentin, F., Cabellos, T., BarYosef Mayer, D.E., Le Dosseur, G., Regev, L., Chu, V., Weiner, S., Boaretto, E., Samuelian, N., Valentin, B., Delerue, S., Poupeau, G., Bridault, A., Rabinovich, R., Simmons, T., Zohar, I., Ashkenazi, S., Delgado Huertas, A., Spiro, B., Mienis, H.K., Rosen, A.M., Porat, N., Belfer-Cohen, A., 2007. Les Fouilles de Ain Mallha (Eynan) de 2003 à 2005: quatrième rapport préliminaire. J. of the Isr. Prehist. Soc. 37, 135–383. Vigne, J.-D., 2011. The origins of animal domestication and husbandry: a major change in the history of humanity and the biosphere. C. R. Biol. 334 (3), 171–181. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.crvi.2010.12.009. Wahida, G.A., 1999. The Zarzian industry of the Zagros mountains. In: Davies, W., Charles, R. (Eds.), Dorothy Garrod and the Progress of the Palaeolithic. Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 181–208. Watkins, T., 2009. From foragers to complex societies in Southwest Asia. In: Scarre, C. (Ed.), The Human Past. World Prehistory and the Development of Human societies, Second edition. Thames and Hudson, London, pp. 200–233. Yeshurun, R., Kaufman, D., Weinstein-Evron, M., 2016. Contextual taphonomy of worked bones in the Natufian sequence of the el-Wad Terrace (Israel). Quat. Int. 403, 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.07.010. Zuschin, M., Stachowitsch, M., Robert, J., Stanton Jr., R.J., 2003. Patterns and processes of shell fragmentation in modern and ancient marine environments. Earth-Sci. Rev. 63, 33–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0012-8252(03)00014-x.

Tepe and Kamiltepe Sites. In: Helwing, B., Aliyev, T., Lyonnet, B., Guliyev, F., Hansen, S., Mirtskhulava, G. (Eds.), The Kura Project, New Research on the Later Prehistory of the Southern Caucasus, Archäologie in Iran und Turan. 16. Dietrich Reimer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 399–424. Tsuneki, A., 2014. Pottery and other objects from Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq. In: Tsuneki, A. (Ed.), The First Farming Village in Northeast Iran and Turan: Tappeh Sang e Chakhmaq and beyond, February 10–11, 2014, Program and Abstracts, pp. 13–18. Uerpmann, H.-P., Frey, W., 1981. Die Umgebung von Ġār-e Kamarband (Belt-Cave) und Ġār -e 'Ali Tappe (Beh-Šahr, Māzandarān, N-Iran) heute und im Spätpleistozän. In: Frey, W., Uerpmann, H.-P. (Eds.), Contributions to the environmental History of the Middle East. Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients A 8, Wiesbaden, pp. 134–199. Vahdati Nasab, H., Jayez, M., Hojabri Nobari, A., Khademi Nadooshan, F., Ilkhani, H., Mahfroozi, A., 2011. Preliminary report of excavation in Komishan cave, Mazandaran, Iran. Antiquity 85, 328. Valla, F.R., 2015. Chapitre 3. Le Moyen-Orient. In: Leroi-Gourhan, A., Garanger, J. (Eds.), La préhistoire dans le Monde. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris (Nouvelle Clio, l'histoire et ses problèmes, 848 p). Valla, F.R., Khalaily, H., Valladas, H., Tinerat-Laborde, N., Samuelian, N., Bocoquentin, F., Rabinovich, R., Bridault, A., Simmons, T., Le Dosseur, G., Miller-Rosen, A., Dubreuil, L., Bar-Yosef Mayer, D., Belfer-Cohen, A., 2004. Les fouilles à Mallaha en 2000 et 2001: 3ème rapport préliminaire. J. Isr. Prehist. Soc. 34, 49–244.

157