0% found this document useful (0 votes)

128 views36 pages

The Neolithic of The Caucasus

Uploaded by

Nikoloz Tsikaridze

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

128 views36 pages

The Neolithic of The Caucasus

Uploaded by

Nikoloz Tsikaridze

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 36

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

Christine Chataigner, Ruben Badalyan, and Makoto Arimura
Subject: Archaeology, Archaeology of Central Asia Online Publication Date: Oct 2014
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935413.013.13

Abstract and Keywords

This article presents our current state of knowledge on the Neolithic of the Caucasus
based on reviews of previous and continuing research. In this region, this period has gen
erally been divided into two cultural stages: Early/Aceramic Neolithic and Late/Ceramic
Neolithic. However, the records from Early Neolithic sites are incomplete due to a lack of
radiocarbon dates and palaeoenvironmental data. Moreover, the transition from the
Mesolithic of the early Holocene to the full Neolithic of the Aratashen-Shulaveri-Shomute
pe culture remains obscure. Although recent research provides new insights on the do
mestication of plants and animals in the Caucasus, the crucial issue involving the origin
and timing of Neolithisation in this region remains unsolved.

Keywords: Caucasus, early Holocene, Neolithic, Aratashen-Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture, domestication

Introduction

Figure 1 . Map of the main sites mentioned in the

text.

[Credit line: drawing C. Chataigner; © Archaeologi

cal Mission “Caucasus” of the French Ministry of
Foreign Affairs (head: C. Chataigner)].

Page 1 of 36

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

Situated between the Black and Caspian Seas and intersected by the Greater Caucasus
Mountains, the Caucasus isthmus has been presented as either a land bridge or a barrier
between the Eurasian steppes and Western Asia. Today, this territory includes the Repub
lic of Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia as well as the Greater and Lesser Caucasus
Mountains, the intra-Caucasus depression (including the Rioni and Kura River basins),
and the Arax River valley (Figure 1). Natural resources such as plants, animals, obsidian,
and copper ore are abundant.

Surveys and excavations carried out by Soviet researchers up until the 1990s revealed
the existence of archaeological sites from the beginning of the Holocene. They were dis
tributed equally on the shores of the Black and Caspian Seas and in the Kura and Arax
River basins. However, this poorly disseminated research lacks reliable radiocarbon dat
ing, stratigraphic contexts, and palaeoenvironmental data. For the past twenty years, in
ternational missions have been conducted to supplement the Soviet research with new
methods of investigation.

First, we briefly review the environmental context of this region and different definitions
of the local Neolithic, then we summarize characteristics of the Neolithic in the Caucasus
by distinguishing two phases traditionally used in Caucasian prehistory: pre-pottery and
pottery. Finally, we discuss the issue of domestication using the currently available data.

Environmental Context

The mountain chain of the Greater Caucasus presents an impassable barrier to the mass
es of cold Arctic air. This chain channels on its southern slopes depressions coming from
the Black Sea, allowing the southern Caucasus to benefit from varied climatic conditions.
The coastal plain of western Georgia (Colchis) is characterized by a Mediterranean cli
mate, approaching subtropical conditions along the Black Sea shore, where the annual
precipitation reaches 2100 mm (Connor and Kvavadze, 2008). Further to the east in east
ern Georgia and Azerbaijan, the climate becomes drier and colder, approaching steppe
conditions. The highlands of the Lesser Caucasus are marked by sharp temperature con
trasts between summer and winter months due to a more continental climate. The Kura
and Arax River basins are rich in fertile soils, which would have provided ideal conditions
for the development of early agriculture (Connor et al., 2004).

Climate reconstruction has been the objective of much palaeoenvironmental research in

Georgia (Connor, 2006), but it is only beginning to develop in Armenia and Azerbaijan (Ol
livier et al., 2012). Results of current pollen analyses indicate the development of mixed
oak forests at about 6000 BC in the Caucasus, as in the neighboring mountainous regions
(Zagros, eastern Taurus) (Djamali et al., 2008; Wick et al., 2003), about 3000 years later
than the Mediterranean coast.

Page 2 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

Definitions of the Neolithic in the Caucasus

In the Soviet era of the 1970s to the 1990s, the Neolithic was generally defined as a shift
in subsistence patterns oriented toward the domestication of plants and animals (cf.
Dzhaparidze and Dzhavakhishvili, 1971; Munchaev, 1975). However, some researchers
did not consider this criterion of domestication to be necessary and believed that a hunt
ing and gathering economy could be called Neolithic if it satisfied other conditions relat
ed to the tool kit (Formozov, 1977; Korobkova and Masson, 1978). These included the ap
pearance of new techniques (e.g., polishing of stone, production of pottery), development
of new tool types (e.g., polished axes, sickle blades, objects for grinding), or the disap
pearance of “typically” Mesolithic elements such as microliths. Thus in western Georgian
sites, the cultural change from the Mesolithic to Early Neolithic was exclusively observed
in the lithic industry (e.g., the appearance of “bullet cores,” polished stone axes, grinding
slabs, handstones, and pestles). As for the transition between the Early and Late Neolith
ic, across the entire Caucasus region it was defined essentially by the appearance of pot
tery (Dzhaparidze, 1989; Gogitidze, 1977; Nieberidze, 1972). However, current research
in the southern Caucasus is shedding new light on the Neolithisation process in this re
gion.

Early Neolithic
By studying the cultural processes from the late Pleistocene to the early Holocene, we
can better understand Neolithisation in the southern Caucasus. However, the archaeolog
ical evidence for this period is not yet sufficient due to the lack of sites with undisturbed
thick deposits and radiocarbon dates. After giving a brief survey of archaeological investi
gations during the Soviet era, we evaluate new results from recent excavations.

Review of the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic in Previous Studies

In past studies, the vast majority of archaeological research concerning the early
Holocene comes from investigations in Georgia. The only sites studied outside of this area
are rockshelters located near the Caspian Sea or in Dagestan (Chokh) and Kobystan.

Georgia
In western Georgia, Mesolithic sites are generally divided into four distinct regional
groups (Kushnareva, 1997; Gabunia and Tsereteli, 2003): Black Sea coastal area, Rioni
valley, Trialeti, and Javakheti. Regardless of whether such groupings are valid, they are
based on variability in the lithic industries. For example, Mesolithic sites on the Black Sea
coast have produced microscrapers and trapezoids, while sites in Trialeti are character
ized by the abundance of scalene triangles. This variability could result from regional or
chronological differences. Two or three subperiods were defined, according to techno-
morphological differences in the lithic industries. Again, the lack of radiocarbon dates
prohibits confirmation of such a chronological division (Meshveliani et al., 2007). There is
little archaeological evidence concerning the subsistence economy during the Mesolithic,

Page 3 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

although cave bear was heavily hunted at Kvachara Cave on the Black Sea coast
(Kushnareva, 1997).

Figure 2 . Lithic industry from the ‘Early Neolithic’

site Anaseuli-1 (western Georgia).

[Credit line: after Korobkova 1996, fig. 2. © Kozlows

ki, S.K., and Gebel, H.G.K. (eds.), Neolithic Chipped
Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, and Their
Contemporaries in Adjacent Regions Proceedings of
the Second Workshop on PPN Chipped Lithic Indus
tries. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Sub
sistence, and Environment 3 (Berlin: Ex Oriente)].

Sites attributed to the Early Neolithic are relatively abundant in western Georgia, espe
cially on the Black Sea coast. Most of these are open-air sites. At Anaseuli-1, the lithic in
dustry is blade-oriented, using both obsidian and flint. According to analyses, obsidian
(up to 50%) comes from Chikiani in southern Georgia, more than 150 km away (Badalyan
et al., 2004). Some bullet-type cores and standardized blades recovered from the site in
dicate that a pressure-flaking technique was used to make blades (Figure 2:1–5). Diagnos
tic tools are short symmetrical trapezoids (transverse arrowheads, Figure 2:11–14) and
sickle blades (Korobkova, 1996). This latter tool type is important, as it indicates that
crop cultivation could have been practiced at Anaseuli-1. In addition, ground stone arti
facts such as polished axes (Figure 2:15) and grinders were found.

Page 4 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

Figure 3 . Lithic industry from the Darkveti rockshel

ter (western Georgia), Layer V ‘Mesolithic’ (1-18)
and Layer IV ‘Early Neolithic’ (19–35).

[Credit line: after Korobkova 1996, fig. 3 and 4. ©

Kozlowski, S.K., and Gebel, H.G.K. (eds.), Neolithic
Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, and
Their Contemporaries in Adjacent Regions Proceed
ings of the Second Workshop on PPN Chipped Lithic
Industries. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production,
Subsistence, and Environment 3 (Berlin: Ex Oriente)]
.

The other site often mentioned is Darkveti rockshelter, situated in the Kvirila valley in
western Georgia (Korobkova, 1996; Kushnareva, 1997; Gabunia and Tsereteli, 2003).
Darkveti is a multilayered site dating from the Mesolithic to Early Bronze Age. In the
Mesolithic layer (V) and the Early Neolithic layer (IV), lithic industries are blade-oriented
with pyramidal or bullet cores (Figure 3; Korobkova, 1996). However, there is a remark
able difference between the two layers concerning the microliths: short trapezoids made
on blades were found in the Early Neolithic layer (Figure 3:27–30), whereas asymmetrical
triangles and backed bladelets were recovered from the Mesolithic layer (Figure 3:2–8).
Ground stones such as polished axes were found only in the Early Neolithic layer (Figure
3:3–5). According to the excavator (Nebieridze, 1978), the presence of domesticated ani
mals is attested in Layer IV. However, some researchers doubt the identification of do
mesticated animals at this site (e.g., Matskevich and Meshveliani, 2009).

Some sites in northern Georgia, the so-called Paluri-Nagutni sites, were placed in the Pro
to-Neolithic or aceramic Neolithic without any radiocarbon dates (Grigolia, 1977; Kigu
radze and Menabde, 2004). Their lithic industries differ from Anaseuli-1 in western Geor
gia by the scarcity of geometric microliths and regular blades and by the presence of a
specific tool type, “tools with hooked projections”. Characterized by continuously re
touched lateral edges, tools with hooked projections are important, since similar re

Page 5 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

touched tools (so-called Çayönü tools) were recovered from aceramic Neolithic sites in
Turkey and Iraq (Anderson and Formenti, 1996). Moreover, specimens recently found in
Armenia could be compared with these tools (see the Kmlo-2 section under Early Neolith
ic). The subsistence economy of the Paluri-Nagutni sites is unclear due to the scarcity of
faunal and floral evidence. Unlike Anaseuli-1 in western Georgia, ground stone tools such
as querns or grinders are not generally present in the Paluri-Nagutni sites.

Dagestan
Located on the northeastern slope of the Greater Caucasus Mountains, the site of Chokh
has produced two Mesolithic layers (E-D) and one Neolithic layer (C) (Amirkhanov, 1987),
attributed to the eighth to seventh and the sixth millennia BC, respectively. However, no
radiocarbon dates were available.

In the Mesolithic layers, the lithic material (flint) is characterized by scalene triangles,
highly asymmetrical trapezoids, and points of the Chokh type (points with thinned butt
and diagonallytruncated edge) (Amirkhanov, 1994).

In the Neolithic layer, the presence of pottery and fully domesticated cereals suggests
that this occupation belongs to the Late Neolithic (see the Dagestan section under Late
Neolithic).

Kobystan (or Gobustan)

In Kobystan, huge blocks of stone broken off from the edges of a limestone layer, form
natural shelters that were often covered with engravings. The rockshelters of Kyaniza and
Firuz have produced two layers of homogenous lithic material, the lower level being ace
ramic (Mesolithic or Early Neolithic) and the upper level containing vessels with pointed
bases evoking the Neolithic of the eastern shore of the Caspian Sea (Formozov, 1966;
Rustamov and Muradova, 1972, 1978). Pit burials attributed to the Neolithic were found
at Kyaniza. However, without radiocarbon dating and precise descriptions of the cultural
material, a chronological attribution for these assemblages is impossible.

In conclusion, it should be noted that our current knowledge of the early Holocene is
quite poor because it is based on information published in the 1960s to 1990s that lacks
radiocarbon dates or sufficient data on subsistence strategies. However, investigations
over the past decade have produced new information on the early Holocene cultures in
the southern Caucasus.

Current Research in the Early Holocene

The sites of Kotias Klde in Georgia and Kmlo-2 in Armenia have yielded evidence of early
Holocene occupations that are important for understanding this period. In addition, the
resumption of excavations at Anaseuli-1 has enabled to establish a chronology for the
Early Neolithic of western Georgia.

Page 6 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

Kotias Klde
Kotias Klde is a cave site situated in the Kvirila River basin of western Georgia
(Meshveliani et al., 2007; Bar-Oz et al., 2009). The deposits are divided into four layers,
ranging from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Bronze Age. A series of radiocarbon dates indi
cates a time range of the eleventh to ninth millennia BC (10850–8240 cal BC) for Layer B
(Mesolithic) and eighth millennium BC (7690–7300 cal BC) for Layer A2 (Early Neolithic).

Excavations at this site produced rich lithic and faunal assemblages. In both layers, the
faunal remains belong exclusively to wild species, mainly wild boar and bear (>75% of
the assemblage). The lithic artefacts are mainly made from flint/radiolarite, a local raw
material. A few obsidian pieces were also present, indicating long-distance expeditions or
trade for acquisition of this material; the nearest source is Chikiani, some 80 km from the
site.

The Mesolithic industry of Kotias Klde is characterized by microliths. Backed bladelets,

including broken pieces, are quite numerous, which may show a continuous tradition
from the late Upper Palaeolithic. A significant Mesolithic tool type is the scalene triangle
(backed bladelet with obliquely truncated ends). End scrapers made on flakes and blades
are dominant among retouched tools, while burins are less common. In the Neolithic lay
er, we see tools with hooked projections similar to those found in the Paluri-Nagutni sites.
According to the excavators, the Mesolithic and Neolithic materials have close parallels
with the assemblages of Layers V and IV at the nearby site of Darkveti (Matskevich and
Meshveliani, 2009).

Kmlo-2
Kmlo-2 is a small cave located on the western slope of a deep valley formed by the Kasakh
River, east of the Aragats massif. The excavations revealed dark brown sandy deposits
that were divided into five layers based on sediment texture and features (Arimura et al.,
2012). According to the 14C dates, occupations at Kmlo-2 can be divided into five phases:
Phase I: Middle Ages; Phase II: Chalcolithic (end of sixth to fifth millennia BC); Phase III:
early Holocene (mid-ninth to mid-eighth millennia BC); Phase IV: beginning of the
Holocene (tenth to mid-ninth millennia BC); and Phase V: late Pleistocene (twelfth to
eleventh millennia BC).

Hearths containing charcoal and ash were found in several layers, along with abundant
obsidian artifacts and animal bones. In Phases V to III, the faunal remains belong to large
bovids (aurochs or bison) and mountain caprids (wild goat and wild sheep). Based on the
thin deposits and size of the cave, Kmlo-2 was a temporary camp site (e.g., a hunting
camp).

Four seasons of excavation have produced numerous lithics made from local obsidian.
Other raw materials, such as dacite and flint, were used sparingly. Cortical flakes of ob
sidian indicate that river pebbles approximately 10 cm in length were brought to the cave

Page 7 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

and knapped there. Such obsidian pebbles are available on the banks of the Kasakh River,
which transports blocks from extensive obsidian sources in the Tsaghkunyats Mountains.

Figure 4 . Lithic industry from Kmlo-2 (Armenia).

[Credit line: drawings M. Arimura; © Archaeological

Mission “Caucasus” of the French Ministry of For
eign Affairs (head: C. Chataigner)].

The lithic industry of Kmlo-2 appears to be blade-oriented, since there are numerous
blades and bladelets corresponding to blade or bladelet cores (Figure 4:1). These blades/
bladelets are removed from pebbles or flakes without specific core preparation. Butt
preparation is generally carried out by abrasion. Most blanks were apparently detached
by direct percussion. Several thin bladelets of regular form were probably detached by a
pressure-flaking technique, but such pressure-flaked specimens (attested in Phases IV–II)
are uncommon (Figure 4:3–6). One small bullet core is evidence for such bladelet produc
tion at the site (Figure 4:2).

One important characteristic of the Kmlo-2 tool assemblage is an abundance of microliths

(Figure 4:16–28). Various forms such as lunates and trapezoid-rectangles exist, but
backed bladelets and scalene triangles are predominant (Figure 4:18–19). The presence
of microburins and remnants of microburin scars on backed bladelets indicate that the
microburin technique was used for their production (Figure 4:23, 28–29).

The most remarkable finds at Kmlo-2 are obsidian “Kmlo tools,” which are named after
the site (Figure 4:10–15). This tool type could be a marker for an early Holocene cultural
entity in Armenia, since Kmlo tools have been found at other sites nearby (Arimura et al.,
2010). Kmlo tools are characterized by continuous and parallel retouch by pressure flak
ing on one or both lateral edges. They are usually made on blades but are also made on
flakes. In many cases, linear or heavy abrasion can be seen on the retouched edge. Addi
tionally, the lateral (retouched) edge is often removed by a burin blow. The ends of the

Page 8 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

tool are also frequently truncated or snapped off. Kmlo tools are absent in Phase V
(twelfth to eleventh millennia BC), appear at the very end of Phase IV, and gradually in
crease in Phases III and II.

The late Pleistocene/early Holocene occupations at Kmlo-2 could include two different
cultural stages. The earlier phases (V–IV), dominated by scalene triangles and backed
bladelets, are comparable with Mesolithic sites in Georgia (Kotias Klde Layer B). The lat
er Phase III, characterized by the presence of Kmlo tools, could be compared with ace
ramic Neolithic sites such as Paluri-Nagutni (Kotias Klde Layer A2) in Georgia.

A comparison with prehistoric sites in western Asia provides a broader perspective. The
lithic industry at Kmlo-2 appears comparable to those from Epipalaeolithic and aceramic
Neolithic sites in the Taurus and Zagros Mountains (cf. Peasnall and Rosenberg, 2001). In
particular, specimens similar to Kmlo tools are present in western Asia (Çayönü tools), as
noted previously. Although direct relationships between the Çayönü tools, Kmlo tools, and
Paluri-Nagutni tools are not obvious, we suggest that an atmosphere existed in which
populations from both the northern part of western Asia (southeastern Anatolia and
northern Mesopotamia) and the southern Caucasus shared common ideas for making cer
tain tools.

Anaseuli-1
New excavations conducted at Anaseuli-1 (Matskevich and Meshveliani, 2009) revealed a
single, well-preserved cultural horizon on the surface that was approximately 5 to 10 cm
thick. Cultural material consisted mostly of lithics of which a high percentage was obsidi
an (50%). An exceptional find was a cache of five long (11–13 cm), complete obsidian
blades. Charcoal dates place this site at 5746 to 5595 cal BC, indicating that it was con
temporaneous with the Late Neolithic culture of Aratashen-Shulaveri-Shomutepe (see the
Late Neolithic section).

Perspective on Cultural Development in the Early Holocene

Page 9 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

Figure 5 . Chronological framework of the evolution

of the lithic industry.

[Credit line: drawings M. Arimura; © Archaeological

Mission “Caucasus" of the French Ministry of For
eign Affairs (head: C. Chataigner)].

There appears to be a missing link between the cultural complexes of the early Holocene
and the Late Neolithic (“Aratashen-Shulaveri-Shomutepe” culture). In order to gain a
chronological perspective for future research, we propose a preliminary chronological
framework for the early Holocene (Figure 5).

Early Phase: Mesolithic

This phase covers the end of the Pleistocene and beginning of the Holocene, roughly the
eleventh to ninth millennia BC. Kmlo-2 Phases V–IV, Kotias Klde Mesolithic Layer B, and
some Mesolithic sites (Kvachara, Darkveti Layer V) are included in this phase.

Although information on subsistence strategy is generally scarce, the mammals hunted by

humans were mostly bears. A microlithic tradition using flint and/or obsidian is clearly
observed in this phase. Backed bladelets or simply retouched bladelets are dominant
among the retouched tools, showing continuity from the Upper Palaeolithic. However, a
distinctive geometric form, the scalene triangle, becomes dominant in this phase. Other
geometric forms such as trapezoids or lunates are relatively rare. The presence of a mi
croburin technique could represent a new component for this period; this technique is
thought to have been effective for making an obliquely truncated end, which is especially
useful for a scalene. The first Kmlo tools probably appeared at the very end of this phase
(end of Phase IV at Kmlo-2, ninth millennium BC).

In summary, this phase could show cultural continuity from the Upper Palaeolithic with
human groups dependent on hunting and gathering but with the appearance of some new
lithic components such as scalene triangles.

Page 10 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

Late Phase: Late Mesolithic or Early Neolithic

Cultural eras such as the Late Mesolithic or Early Neolithic (aceramic Neolithic) are in
cluded in this phase and involve sites on the Black Sea coast, in the Kvirila River basin
(Darkveti Layer IV), in the Paluri-Nagutni group (Paluri, Kotias Klde Layer A2), and in
Kmlo-2 Cave (Phase III). Tentatively, this phase is attributed to the end of the ninth to sev
enth millennia BC.

In this phase, blank production for tools appears to have shifted from microblades to larg
er blades or in some cases to flakes. Geometric microliths were still used and were domi
nated by long trapezoids with related forms (triangles, lunates), while scalene triangles
and backed bladelets were less common. Toward the end of this phase, short trapezoids
(transverse arrowheads) appear to have been predominant. Distinct tools of this phase
have fine, parallel retouch on their sides (obsidian, and in some cases, flint), such as Kmlo
tools in Armenia and tools with hooked projections in Georgia. Such tools show a close
morphological resemblance to Çayönü tools from Neolithic sites in western Asia.

As previously noted, the appearance of domesticated plants and animals in the early
Holocene in the southern Caucasus remains unclear. The presence of domesticated ani
mals in the Darkveti Layer IV, proposed in the 1970s (Nebieridze, 1978), has not been
confirmed by the recent excavations at Kotias Klde, located near Darkveti (Matskievich
and Meshveliani, 2009). Therefore, future research should evaluate whether this phase
can be identified as an early stage of the Neolithic in regard to the subsistence economy.

Late Neolithic
Research History

Understanding the culture that is currently defined as the Late Neolithic began during
excavations of the lower level of Kültepe-1 near Nakhichevan (1951–1964). After the dis
covery of the Shomutepe settlement in the Kura River basin of northwestern Azerbaijan in
the first half of the 1960s, the newly revealed culture was then named the Shomutepe.
Later in the mid-1960s, analogous sites were discovered in Georgia (e.g., Shulaveri,
Arukhlo), resulting in the names Shomutepe-Shulaveri or Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture.

In Armenia, several Late Neolithic sites were recorded in the Ararat valley between the
1960s and 1980s (Sardaryan, 1967). However, only the excavations over the past fifteen
years (e.g., Aratashen, Aknashen-Khatunarkh) have provided a relatively complete pic
ture of the Late Neolithic period in this region. The sixth millennium BC sites of the Arax
and Kura River basins can be considered to be a homogenous Aratashen-Shulaveri-Sho
mutepe complex due to the similarity of their material culture. This is the earliest cur
rently known culture of the southern Caucasus based on a production economy, having
yielded the first recorded examples of house construction, pottery production, and metal
working.

Page 11 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

Beyond the basins of the Kura and Arax Rivers, the most recent research on the Mil
steppe in Azerbaijan (Aliyev and Helwing, 2009) has revealed a cultural complex from the
middle of the sixth millennium BC (Kamiltepe), which had been known before only from
surface collections (Iessen, 1965) and which is clearly distinct from the “Aratashen-
Shulaveri-Shomutepe” culture. Two other cultures, previously attributed to the Early Ne
olithic, have been dated to the sixth millennium BC in recent studies: Chokh Level C in
Dagestan and Anaseuli-1 in western Georgia.

The following sections discuss the “Aratashen-Shulaveri-Shomutepe” culture and the oth
er sites in the Mil steppe, Dagestan, and western Georgia.

The Aratashen-Shulaveri-Shomutepe Culture

Geography and Chronology

Currently known sites of this culture (Figure 1) are connected by the main watercourses
of the region—the Arax and Kura Rivers—and form two strictly localized groups or
“oases,” which represent two cultural variants.

The first oasis is located in the middle sector of the Kura River. In Georgia, the sites
Shulaveris-gora, Imiris-gora, Gadachrili-gora, Dangreuli-gora, Arukhlo, and Khramis Didi-
gora are located on the Marneuli plain (270–500 m a.s.l.). Further to the southeast in
Azerbaijan lie the sites of Shomutepe, Tоirеtepe, Gargalartepesi, Göy Tepe, and Mentesh
Tepe.

The second oasis, along the middle stream of the Arax River, includes the Ararat valley
(800–1000 m a.s.l.) in Armenia with the sites of Aratashen, Aknashen (former Khatu
narkh), Masis-blur (former Yengidzha), Tsaghkunk, and the Nakhichevan valley with Kül
tepe.

Beyond the boundaries of these oases in the surrounding intermountain basins of the
southern Caucasus, no possible analogous settlements are known. However, an analogous
artifact complex beyond the Kura-Arax interfluve is represented by lower horizon (III) ma
terials of Tilki-tepe (Korfmann, 1982) on the eastern shore of Lake Van (1660 m a.s.l.). At
the same time, this site indicates the northern boundary of the widely distributed Halaf
ware. Sporadic finds of imported pottery, often defined as Halaf ware, were criteria for
relative dating of the Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture in the sixth millennium BC (Kav
taradze, 1983).

Regardless of the evolving concepts concerning absolute dating of the complex, the sites
of the southern oasis (Aknashen, Masisi-blur, Nakhichevan Kültepe) were attributed to
later, final stages of the culture (Kiguradze, 1976; Kavtaradze, 1983) in the framework of
relative chronology. This theory raised objections (Narimanov, 1987) and has subsequent
ly been completely contradicted by data from new investigations.

Page 12 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

During the past decade, new series of dates have been obtained for the sites in the Kura
and Arax River basins (Badalyan et al., 2007, 2010; Lyonnet and Guliyev, 2010; Lyonnet et
al., 2012). The majority of these dates fall in the first half of the sixth millennium BC at
Aknashen (Horizons V, IV, and part of III); Aratashen (Layer II); Masis-blur; Arukhlo; and
Mentesh Tepe. Göy Tepe dates to the middle of the sixth millennium BC, and several
dates from Arukhlo and the upper horizons of Aknashen (II, part of III) point to the third
quarter of the sixth millennium BC.

Thus, according to 14C data, the “Aratashen-Shulaveri-Shomutepe” complex dates to c.

6000–5250 cal BC. These dates indicate that settlements of this complex appeared and
developed simultaneously in both the Kura and the Arax River basins. An attempt at peri
odization of this culture (Kiguradze, 1976) was unsuccessful since the new data did not
confirm its patterns of development.

Environment and Settlements

In the sixth millennium BC on the Ararat plain, geomorphological and sedimentological
research indicates that the Kasakh River water level was full and formed a broad basin
with small lagoons and lakes, where carp (Cyprinus carpio) and catfish (Silurus glanis)
could be fished. Around Aratashen and Aknashen, the vegetation consisted of wetlands
(Cyperus sp., Carex sp.), gallery forests along the rivers (Salix, Populus, Tamarix), and
mixed oak forests (Quercus, Acer, Amygdalus, Celtis) in the surrounding foothills. Forest
ed areas were inhabited by aurochs (Bos primigenius), red deer (Cervus elaphus), roe
deer (Capreolus capreolus), gazelle (Gazella sp.), and moufflon or ibex (Ovis orientalis,
Capra aegagrus) (Badalyan et al. 2007, 2010). Landscapes consisting of a mosaic of
gallery/riparian forests, and mixed deciduous forests were also reconstructed for the Ku
ra basin and Khrami valley (Connor and Sagona, 2007). The region where Mentesh Tepe
is located had more pronounced aridity, resulting in the presence of open shrublands
(elm, buckthorn) (Lyonnet et al., 2012).

Human settlements that developed in this landscape formed mounds, called blur (in Ar
menian), gora (in Georgian), or tepe (in Turkish). Most cover an area of approximately 1
ha (sometimes larger: Khramis Didi-gora was ~3 ha) and are 2.5 to 3.5 m in relative
height. The Neolithic layers can measure 4.5 to 6.0 m or more in thickness (e.g., 8–10 m
at Nakhichevan Kültepe-1 and Gargalartepesi). These layers were partially buried under
alluvial sediments in the Ararat valley and in the Marneuli valley, where the ancient sur
face is 2 m below the modern one. Judging from the available data, these settlements
were established in previously uninhabited places. On the Marneuli plain, the settlements
formed clusters of four to six at a distance of 0.5 to 2 km apart (Dzhvakhishvili, 1973). In
the Ararat valley, the settlements appear to be more isolated, with 3 to 6 km separating
them.

With deep cultural horizons and permanent dwellings, the “Aratashen-Shulaveri-Shomute

pe” sites certainly provide an impression of sedentism. However, the sites’ function and
status could have differed or changed over time, and some settlements could have been
seasonal. For example, all age classes of sheep and goat are represented in Aratashen,

Page 13 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

but in Aknashen the very young adults and juveniles are absent. In other words, lambing
did not occur in Aknashen (Badalyan et al., 2010; Balasescu et al., 2010). Preliminary
geoarchaeological data gleaned from Horizon IV of Aknashen indicate the rarity or near
absence of charcoal and ash in contrast with the high content of domestic animal dung.
This evidence might not support an argument for a year-round community presence.
However, only part of the population might have engaged in seasonal mobility. The pres
ence of domestic pig in all horizons (V–II) of Aknashen demonstrates that at least some in
habitants settled here all year.

Figure 6 . Architectural remains from Aratashen,

Levels IIc–d (Armenia).

[Credit line: photo P. Lombard, © Archaeological

Mission “Caucasus" of the French Ministry of For
eign Affairs (head: C. Chataigner)].

Page 14 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

Figure 7 . Architectural remains from Arukhlo (Geor

gia).

[Credit line: after Lyonnet et al., 2012: fig 83–84, 92–

93; © Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Tu
ran (Berlin: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut)].

In the Kura and Arax River valleys, the architecture follows the same principles. A dense,
chaotic group of structures is observed nearly everywhere, mainly consisting of one-room
dwellings 3.5 to 5.0 m in diameter and cylindrical household structures with diameters
between 0.4 and 1.0 m (Figure 6). The Kura dwellings are built of plano-convex mud
bricks (Figure 7). On the Ararat plain, the use of bricks and/or clay blocks was found only
rarely at Aratashen (Layers IIb–IId) and Aknashen (Horizon IV). Here and in Kültepe-1,
the predominant building material was cob, plastic earth containing a high content of or
ganic remains such as threshed cultivated cereals and wild desert madwort (Alyssum de
sertorum).

Cylindrical structures (perhaps silos) made from clay slabs were randomly placed inside
dwellings or in the open air. Also common were rounded and oval hearths made of peb
bles surrounded by a clay border and working platforms that were amorphous accumula
tions of natural pebbles with fragments of stone tools, obsidian cores and blades, bones
and bone tools, stone axes, and grooved stones resting on them in situ. Traces of special
ized activities are recorded in some locations, for example concentrations of microflakes,
microfragments, and cores (e.g., Aratashen, Layer IIc; Aknashen, Horizons IV and V).
Moreover, a few semisubterranean structures occur in the settlements of the Kura valley,
particularly in Arukhlo (Masson et al., 1982) and Shomutepe (Narimanov, 1987).

Two parallel ditches were found in Arukhlo. In addition to one recorded in Imiris-gora
(Dzhavakhishvili, 1973), these ditches were dug out and filled during the occupation of

Page 15 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

the settlement (Lyonnet et al., 2012) and probably functioned as an enclosure, as a water
reservoir, or for irrigation.

The settlements were also a place for burials. In the lower layer of Nakhichevan Kültepe
(below 19 m), burials of children and adults were revealed among dwellings and under
the floors. The skeletons were found lying on one side in flexed position. Sometimes a red
colorant had been used on the corpse. The burials are generally found without cultural
objects, though some of them contained items such as obsidian blades, beads, or rare
stone tools and clay vessels (Abibullaev, 1982). Remains of burials were found at Ak
nashen in Horizons IV and V, at Imiris–gora (Dzhavakhishvili, 1973) and at Arukhlo (Kigu
radze, 1986). The only example of cremation in the southern Caucasus was discovered at
Arukhlo (Lyonnet et al., 2012). For the same period (mid-sixth millennium BC), cremation
was attested at Sialk I in Iran, where five examples were found (Soltysiak and Fazeli,
2010).

Material Culture
Lithic industry.
The lithic industry of all Aratashen-Shulaveri-Shomutepe sites is based on obsidian. Flint,
dacite, quartz, and other raw materials make up only a very small percentage of the as
semblage (0.4% at Aknashen in Armenia, 3.5% at Mentesh Tepe in Azerbaijan) (Badalyan
et al., 2010; Lyonnet et al., 2012).

A total of 36,700 units were found at Aknashen during eight excavation seasons, made on
obsidian originating from various sources. Five to six (up to ten at Aknashen) sources
were generally exploited, of which one or two played a dominant role. In the Ararat val
ley, these are Arteni (southwest of Mt. Aragats), Gutansar, and Hatis (western foothills of
the Geghama range), and to a lesser extent Geghasar (southern part of Geghama range)
at a distance of 40 to 65 km (Badalyan, 2010; Badalyan et al., 2007, 2010; Chataigner and
Gratuze, 2013). Chikiani (Javakheti range) was the predominant obsidian source for the
Kura valley in Georgia (Khramis Didi-gora) (Badalyan, 2010), whereas in Azerbaijan
(Mentesh Tepe), the sources of Gegham and Tsaghkunyats were predominant (Lyonnet et
al., 2012).

Along with this Caucasian obsidian, which represented 80% or more of the supply, some
more distant sources were found. Evidence for sources in the Lake Van basin (3a/Meydan
Dağ) and from Sarikamish was found at Aratashen, whereas the obsidian at Mentesh Te
pe came from Bayazet (Tendurek?) and at Khramis Didi-gora from Sarikamish. Obtaining
this material most likely occurred through contacts indirectly connected with the obsidi
an trade. At Aratashen, some Meydan Dağ samples were found in association with Halaf
ware; in this case, the sporadic dissemination of Lake Van obsidian probably occurred
with the import of pottery into the Ararat valley.

Page 16 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

Figure 8 . Lithic industry from Aratashen (1, 11–16,

18–19) and Aknashen (2–10, 17) (Armenia).

[Credit line: drawings J. Leclerc (Aratashen) and G.

Devilder (Aknashen); © Archaeological Mission
“Caucasus” of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs
(head: C. Chataigner)].

The obsidian industry is morphologically and technologically characterized by a predomi

nance of long blades (up to 20 cm) (Figure 8:11–19). Of the items at Aratashen, blade
tools make up 97.7% and flake tools 2.3% of the assemblage. Various techniques were ap
plied for producing the blades: indirect percussion, pressure with crutch, and pressure
with lever (Badalyan et al. 2007, 2010; Chabot and Pelegrin, 2012). The pressure tech
nique using a lever emerged in the upper valley of the Tigris (Çayönü Tepesi) between
7340 and7080 cal BC (Altinbilek-Algül et al., 2012).

The usewear analysis of blades from Aratashen and Aknashen demonstrates their connec
tion with agricultural activities such as harvesting, stripping, and threshing. Sickle and
tribulum elements were defined among the tools (Badalyan et al., 2007, 2010; Chabot et
al., 2009). Composite sickles with a wooden or bone frame (e.g., mandibula with blades
fixed with bitumen) were found in Shomutepe and Toiretepe (Chataigner, 1995).

The question concerning geometric microliths in the Aratashen-Shulaveri-Shomutepe in

dustry is of special importance. It has been suggested that microliths are uncharacteristic
of this culture. Single finds at Imiris-gora and Khramis Didi-gora seemed to appear only
in relation to the later cultural stages (Kiguradze, 1976). It is currently assumed that the
presence or absence of microliths in the complex is related to economic activity. Although
no microliths were found at Aratashen among more than 20,000 artefacts, 120 samples
were collected in the neighboring contemporaneous settlement of Aknashen. These in
volve transverse arrowheads, including trapezoids and (less frequently) triangles with
thinned backs (Figure 8:4–10), the number of which regularly increases from the upper to

Page 17 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

lower horizons. Microliths were also found in Arukhlo (Hansen et al., 2006, 2007) and
Göy Tepe (Lyonnet and Guliyev, 2010).

Bone, horn, and antler.

Numerous bone and horn artifacts make up one of the most specific cultural-typological
and functionally important categories of the Aratashen-Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture. This
industry is represented by a wide variety of objects in the early phases of the culture. Da
ta from Aknashen show that the number of such objects decreased gradually in the upper
layers of the settlement until the technical degradation of these objects during the Chal
colithic (Badalyan et al., 2010).

Figure 9 . Bone industry from Aratashen (1–2, 4–7, 9–

11, 13–15, 19) and Aknashen (3, 8, 12, 16–18, 20)
(Armenia).

[Credit line: drawings H. Sargsyan; © Archaeological

Mission “Caucasus" of the French Ministry of For
eign Affairs (head: C. Chataigner)].

Most of the tools (50%–80%) are awls/punches, with their percentage increasing in the
upper horizons. The other objects, whose diversity is related to all types of activity, in
clude handles of composite sickles, hoes, picks, hammers, hafts, arrowheads, spoons,
palettes, toothed tools, burnishers, and pins (Figure 9).

Page 18 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

Ground stone.

Figure 10 . Ground stone from Aratashen (1, 4–5, 7,

9–10, 12–13) and Aknashen (2–3, 6, 8, 11) (Armenia).

[Credit line: drawings H. Sargsyan; © Archaeological

Mission “Caucasus" of the French Ministry of For
eign Affairs (head: C. Chataigner)].

The assemblage includes basalt and sandstone grinders, querns, hammers, pestles, mor
tars, pumice tools, plummets, and maceheads, which were related to the processing of ce
reals, mineral and pigment pounding, and stone grinding (Hamon, 2008). Polished axes
(celts) (Figure 10:9–13) and grooved stones (“shaft-straighteners”) (Figure 10:1–8) were
also found. Grooved stones appear to be rare and have simple forms at the Kura River
basin sites (e.g., have only one groove at Imiris–gora and Khramis Didigora) (Hamon,
2008), whereas in the south (Aratashen, Aknashen, Tilkitepe Layer III), they are repre
sented by a wider range of variants (Badalyan et al., 2007, 2010; Korfmann, 1982). These
tools, whose grooves are generally transverse like those from the Zagros in the eleventh
millennium BC onward (Badalyan et al., 2010), appear to have disappeared in the south
ern Caucasus at the end of the sixth millennium BC. This was concurrent with the time
when the bone-working techniques degraded.

Pottery.
Pottery of the Aratashen-Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture represents the earliest examples of
production in the southern Caucasus. In the Ararat valley, the lower (II) layer of
Aratashen does not contain pottery, except for a few imported painted fragments of Halaf
ware. The upper part of the lowest horizon (V) at Aknashen yielded a small number of rel
atively high-quality sherds with grit temper (Grit II). Made with well-levigated clay con
taining also grog, these had burnished surfaces. In Horizon IV, Grit II predominates over
a production of coarse ware (Grit I), but the quantity of sherds remains low. In Horizon

Page 19 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

III, Grit II decreases proportionally to an increase of coarse pottery (Grit I) and pottery
with organic temper. The latter is predominant in Horizon II.

Figure 11 . Pottery from Aknashen (Armenia) (1–7, 9,

11, 13–14 – grit-tempered ware I; 8, 10, 12 – grit-
tempered ware II; 15–21 – chaff-tempered ware).

[Credit line: drawings H. Sargsyan; © Archaeological

Mission “Caucasus" of the French Ministry of For
eign Affairs (head: C. Chataigner)].

Grit-tempered pottery is morphologically represented by handmade coiled vessels that

were cylindrical and barrel-shaped, with wide, flat bases and heel-shaped profiles. These
vessels are not decorated; there are only a few examples with large attached lug handles
(Palumbi, 2007; Arutyunyan, 2011; Arutyunyan and Mnatsakanyan, 2010) (Figure 11:1–
14).

Although a small amount of pottery in the lower horizons and its gradual increase in the
upper horizons is also evident in the Kura basin settlements, the technological and stylis
tic traditions vary. Having great morphological similarity with the Aknashen pottery, the
ware from Nakhichevan Kültepe-1 also contains organic rather than mineral temper.
Chaff-tempered pottery makes up a large proportion of sherds from Mentesh Tepe (Lyon
net et al., 2012), while pottery with nonorganic temper prevails (80%–85%) at Shomutepe
(Narimanov, 1987).

Page 20 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

Figure 12 . Pottery from Arukhlo (Georgia).

[Credit line: after Lyonnet et al., 2012: fig 110–114,

116–124; © Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran
und Turan (Berlin: Deutsches Archäologisches Insti
tut)].

Local characteristics are evident when the vessels’ decoration is compared. The grit-tem
pered pottery from Aknashen and the chaff-tempered pottery from Kültepe are both un
decorated, whereas plastique decoration (e.g., rounded and oval knobs, horseshoe-
shaped, circular and zigzag decorations on the rim’s outer edge) is very common for the
grit-tempered ware of the Kura basin, including anthropomorphic motifs at Arukhlo,
Imiris-gora, and Khramis Didi-gora (Figure 12) (Lyonnet et al., 2012). One-third of the
fragments at Arukhlo are decorated (Hansen et al., 2006, 2007). The rounded and vertical
knob decoration under the vessel rims from Shomutepe is characteristic of grit-tempered
pottery. Similar decoration is characteristic of Aknashen and Aratashen pottery contain
ing organic temper from the upper horizons (Figure 11:15–21).

However, these technological and stylistic differences in the morphologically homogenous

pottery assemblages of the Arax and Kura basins raise important questions concerning
the origin and development of Neolithic pottery in the southern Caucasus.

Page 21 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

Metal.

Figure 13 . Copper beads (bracelet) from Aratashen

(Armenia).

[Credit line: photo R. Badalyan; © Archaeological

Mission “Caucasus" of the French Ministry of For
eign Affairs (head: C. Chataigner)].

Copper artifacts found in Aratashen-Shulaveri-Shomutepe sites are the earliest known

metal objects in the southern Caucasus. These consist of small ornaments, particularly
beads (Aratashen, Aknashen, Nakhichevan Kültepe I, Khramis Didi-gora, Arukhlo, and
Gargalar tepesi). Fabricated from copper leaf rolled around a rod on one or two lathes,
the beads are of a standard type found across western Asia in the eighth to sixth millen
nia BC. Fifty-seven of these beads (Figure 13) formed a bracelet about 6 cm in diameter
(Badalyan et al., 2007) found in situ at Aratashen (Layer IIb). The beads are made of pure
native copper containing only minor natural impurities (Meliksetian et al., 2011).

Fragments of malachite and azurite are regularly found starting in the lower horizons of
Aratashen, Aknashen, and Arukhlo. These minerals were common in Neolithic sites of
western Asia (Schoop, 1999) and could have been raw materials for making artifacts and
ornaments or a source for pigments. The same uses are possible for galena, which is also
present at Aknashen. Both galena and lead artifacts are known in the Neolithic of west
ern Asia (Schoop, 1999; Munchaev and Merpert, 1981). Traces of malachite and hematite
are preserved on the working surfaces of several grindstones and pestles from Aknashen.

The Mil Steppe

Surveys carried out in the 1950s (Iessen, 1965) on the Mil steppe revealed this region’s
rich archaeological potential. Researchers found several tells (e.g., Kamiltepe, Shahtepe)
that yielded painted pottery called Mil Steppe Painted Ware, attributed to the Chalcolithic
(Narimanov, 1987).

In 2009, excavations were resumed at the tell of Kamiltepe in the Qarasu valley (Alyev
and Helwing, 2009; Lyonnet et al., 2012). The occupation of the site extends over two
phases: a massive mud brick construction, built in the center of the village, was then sur

Page 22 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

rounded by domestic architecture with evidence for storage and food preparation. Some
700 m to the southwest of Kamiltepe lies another tell (MPS 4) that produced a semisub
terranean round building with evidence of a shell bead workshop (Lyonnet et al., 2012).

Figure 14 . Pottery from Kamiltepe (Azerbaijan).

[Credit line: after Lyonnet et al., 2012: fig 110–114,

116–124; © Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran
und Turan (Berlin: Deutsches Archäologisches Insti
tut)].

The cultural material consists of handmade, chaff-tempered pottery (often with geometric
painted decoration in black or dark red on a light surface; Figure 14), obsidian and flint
tools, and occasional ornamental objects, such as beads made from shell, carnelian, or
turquoise. Radiocarbon dating places the occupation of Kamiltepe-1 during the mid-sixth
millennium BC (Aliyev and Helwing, 2009).

The recovered animal bones largely consist of domesticated animals; caprids are most nu
merous, followed by cattle and pigs. Among the wild species are gazelles and red deer.
The large number of birds, especially duck, as well as some fish bones and molluscs, indi
cate the availability of aquatic resources probably near the site.

This culture presents few analogies with the neighboring Aratashen-Shulaveri-Shomutepe

culture. However, its architecture (monumental platform) and pottery (painted decora
tion) are clearly related to northern Iran and the region around the southern edge of the
Caspian Sea (Lyonnet et al., 2012).

Dagestan

In the Neolithic layer (C) at Chokh, a large stone building with a corridor-like entrance
yielded abundant material (Amirkhanov, 1987). Continuity is obvious in the lithic material
from the Mesolithic layers: scalene triangles still predominate and small blades become
frequent. Grinding stones and pottery (mineral-tempered ware with flat bases) also ap
pear, and a sherd decorated with two knobs evokes the Aratashen-Shulaveri-Shomutepe

Page 23 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

culture. Bone sickle handles decorated with incised diamond shapes closely parallel the
culture of Sialk I (sixth millennium BC) on the Iranian plateau (Wechler, 2001).

Based on the presence of domesticated animals (sheep) and a large assortment of cere
als, the excavator considers this site evidence of local domestication (see the Discussion
section).

Western Georgia

The Early Neolithic of western Georgia was followed by a Late Neolithic, represented by
sites distributed on the coastal strip (e.g., Anaseuli-2, Odishi, Makhvilauri) and character
ized by the appearance of pottery (Nebieridze, 1972; Kiguradze, 2001). The undifferenti
ated red-baked jars with a button base could be decorated with incised geometric orna
ments and grooves on the rim. The lithic industry was characterized by the blade tech
nique and an abundance of geometric microliths (trapezes and lunates); ground stone
tools (querns, grooved stones) were also found (Kiguradze and Menadbe, 2004).

However, conclusive evidence for the use of domesticated plant and animal resources is
still absent, and radiocarbon dates are again lacking. Based on typological parallels of the
pottery assemblages with the Early Chalcolithic of eastern Georgia (Sioni culture) (Kigu
radze and Menabde, 2004), it appears plausible that the Late Neolithic of western Geor
gia was partly contemporaneous with the Late Neolithic of eastern Georgia (Aratashen-
Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture) and partly with the Early Chalcolithic (Sioni culture).

Discussion
On a theoretical level, the transition from Mesolithic hunter-gatherers to Neolithic farm
ers can be understood through two factors: (a) migration, or the spread of agricultural so
cieties; and (b) diffusion, when indigenous hunter-gatherers adopt items, ideas, and prac
tices associated with agricultural society (e.g., domestic plants and animals, pottery)
(Budja, 2005). Migration and diffusion represent the ends of a variegated spectrum of
mechanisms, including folk migration, demic diffusion, elite dominance, community infil
tration, leapfrog colonization, exchange in frontier zones, and regional exchange (Zvelebil
and Lillie, 2000).

In regard to the Caucasus, the scattered nature of the data and rarity of radiocarbon
dates make it difficult to examine the Neolithisation process. However, a review of hy
potheses formulated in the past and information from recent excavations enable us to
propose a new direction of research on the regional domestication of plants and animals.

Domestication of Plants

Page 24 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

Previous Theories
In the Soviet literature concerning the Caucasus, there is a broad consensus that the
emergence of agriculture was clearly a local phenomenon, due to its manifestation within
the area of natural distribution of cereals (Lisitsyna and Prischepenko, 1977; Janushevich,
1984).

According to Nebieridze (1986), the emergence of agriculture was a local Caucasian in
vention, completely independent from the development of agricultural communities in
western Asia. She bases her conclusion on evidence of the gradual progress of cultural
and economic development in western Georgia. The process of diffusion out of the west
Georgian center took place much later and led to the emergence of the Aratashen-
Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture of eastern Georgia.

Based on the cultural sequence observed at Chokh in Dagestan, in which a Neolithic layer
succeeded Mesolithic occupations, Amirkhanov (1987) proposed a model suggesting an
independent development of agriculture in the northern Caucasus and its later spread to
the south.

The hypothesis of Kiguradze (1976, 1986) states that the primary center of the Caucasian
agricultural revolution was eastern Georgia, where the Aratashen-Shulaveri-Shomutepe
culture had developed. Kiguradze does accept the idea that the process of domestication
resulted from cultural contact with western Asia but considers domestication itself to be a
process accomplished by the local population.

Current Research
Present research shows that the first two hypotheses cannot be supported. Indeed, in
western Georgia, the early Neolithic represented by Anaseuli-1 presents no clear evi
dence for plant domestication. As for Chokh in Dagestan, two hearths in the lowest part
of the Neolithic level have produced evolved varieties of wheat (einkorn, emmer, naked
wheat) and barley (six-row barley) but no wild cereals (Amirkhanov, 1987; Wechler, 2001).
It is likely that cereals were already domesticated elsewhere before arriving at Chokh.
Thus the early process of plant domestication cannot be observed in the Caucasus.

The assortment of domesticated species found on the sites of the Aratashen-Shulaveri-

Shomutepe culture during the 1960s to 1980s (Lisitsyna and Prischepenko, 1977) is evi
dence for a large variety that includes hulled and naked barley (Hordeum vulgare), einko
rn (Triticum monococcum), emmer (T. dicoccum), hexaploid wheats (T. spelta, T.
aestivum), and millets (Panicum miliaceum, Setaria italica). However, some of these iden
tifications have been questioned (Zohary and Hopf, 2004). All of these species were culti
vated in the northern part of western Asia in the eighth to seventh millennia BC, and the
introduction of most of them to the Caucasus seems probable.

However, recent excavations have confirmed some originality of plant use in the Neolithic
Caucasus: hexaploid wheat (T. aestivum) largely predominates over emmer, with einkorn
being very rare (Hovsepyan and Willcox, 2008; Lyonnet et al., 2012). Even in the Mil

Page 25 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

steppe culture (Kamiltepe), where naked barley (Hordeum vulgare) is the main cultivated
crop and the percentage of wheat is very low, the only wheat identified is Triticum aes
tivum (Lyonnet et al., 2012). This free-threshing wheat is of particular significance be
cause it is quite rare in Neolithic sites in western Asia during the same period (seventh–
sixth millennia BC) (Guliyev and Nishiaki, 2012). This evidence suggests that not all do
mesticated plants were introduced from western Asia, but some species could have been
locally domesticated.

In fact, the naked hexaploid wheat (T. aestivum) is a derivative of the hulled variety, spelt
(T. spelta), which was also reported from sixth-millennium BC contexts on the Kura River
plain (Arukhlo) (Zohary and Hopf, 2004). Molecular studies of hexaploid wheats show that
this Asian spelt originated from the hybridization of a tetraploid wheat with the diploid
wild grass Aegilops tauschii (squarrosa) (Petersen et al., 2006). Other studies have shown
that populations of Aegilops tauschii native to Armenia and the southwest part of the
Caspian Sea belt are closest to the genome D found in hexaploid wheat (Dvorak et al.,
1998), confirming this as an area where hexaploids originated (Kilian et al., 2009).

This origin of hexaploids appears to be independent from a possible earlier domestication

event in southeastern Anatolia and northern Syria during the eighth millennium BC (Nes
bitt, 2002). Genetic studies have shown that at least two Aegilops tauschii sources con
tributed germplasm to the genome D of Triticum aestivum (Giles and Brown, 2006). One
gave rise to the lineage possessing the TAE1 allele and its derivatives, which came from
the southern Caucasus and the southwest corner of the Caspian belt; the other resulted
in the lineage with the TAE2 allele coming from southeast Turkey/northern Syria, where
local Aegilops tauschii has a high frequency of the TAE2 allele.

In addition, recent finds from Aratashen-Shulaveri-Shomutepe sites suggest that a naked

hexaploid wheat was in the process of replacing emmer wheat during occupation of the
settlements. These finds support the genetic evidence suggesting that hexaploid wheat
evolved independently in this region.

Domestication of Animals

Previous Theories
Similar to the theory about domestication of cereals, the Caucasus has long been consid
ered a possible source for the domestication of animals. This theory was based on the
abundance of remains from their wild ancestors (e.g., aurochs, moufflon, ibex, wild boar)
(Kushnareva, 1997).

Current Research
The collections studied recently by Benecke (Lyonnet et al., 2012) consist of about 50,000
faunal remains from Neolithic layers at Arukhlo and Mentesh Tepe in the Kura basin and
Kamiltepe on the Mil steppe. Morphologically, the sheep, goats, cattle, and pigs from all

Page 26 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

three sites represent animals that were in an advanced stage of domestication, obviously
having been under human control for a long period of time.

The first successful DNA studies show a high variability in mitochondrial haplotypes in
sheep and cattle from Aruchlo. This is in clear contrast to western Anatolia or southeast
Europe, where a strongly reduced haplotype variability was observed in these species, in
dicating a rapid spread of animals from a small founder population in the areas of domes
tication (the bottleneck effect). The high genetic variability seen in Neolithic domestic an
imals from the southern Caucasus may indicate their close proximity to the primary areas
of domestication (Lyonnet et al., 2012).

Phenomena such as admixture (hybridization between a domestic population and wild

population of identical and/or sister species) may have occurred in the Southern Cauca
sus. In fact, during the early stage of migration of an agricultural society away from the
domestication center, domestic populations are small relative to the surrounding wild
populations, and repeated hybridizations between the two may lead to the domestic popu
lation becoming more genetically divergent from its original domestic source population
(Larson and Burger, 2013).

Conclusion
Current research on the beginning of the Holocene in the Caucasus has led to the follow
ing conclusions:

(1) The transition between the Mesolithic and Neolithic remains poorly understood.
For instance, in Armenia, there is indeed a long gap (c.7500–6000 BC) between Km
lo-2 (early Holocene) and Aratashen/Aknashen (Aratashen-Shulaveri-Shomutepe cul
ture); ongoing excavations are just beginning to fill this gap. It should be noted that,
to date, no transitional stage from the local Mesolithic to agricultural Neolithic in the
Caucasus has been discovered.
(2) The cultures defined as Early Neolithic refer to different situations according to
region:
- In the highlands of the central Caucasus, sites dated by 14C to the ninth to eighth
millennia BC (Paluri-Nagutni sites in Georgia; Kmlo-2 Phase III in Armenia) are
characterized by an economy based exclusively on hunting and gathering and the
presence of so-called hooked tools or Kmlo tools (Matskevich and Meshveliani,
2009; Arimura et al., 2010). The morphology of these tools suggests relations with
pre-pottery Neolithic B cultures in southeastern Turkey (Çayönü, Cafer Hoyük) in
the eighth millennium BC. However, in these regions, the pre-pottery Neolithic B
is characterized by the “Big Arrowhead Industry” (Kozlowski, 1999) and the prac
tices of agriculture and herding; none of these innovations appeared then in the
southern Caucasus.
- The Early Neolithic of western Georgia, traditionally represented by the site of
Anaseuli-1 (Nebieridze, 1978), has been recently radiocarbon dated to the sixth

Page 27 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

millennium BC. Obsidian was imported into western Georgia from the eastern part
of the country occupied by the Aratashen-Shulaveri-Shomutepe farmers.
- The Neolithic level of Chokh in Dagestan probably belongs to the sixth millenni
um BC, based on its parallels in cultural material with the cultures of Aratashen-
Shulaveri-Shomutepe and Sialk-1. Moreover, the presence of fully domesticated
cereals and the absence of wild varieties found in this layer suggest an import.
There is no support for the hypothesis of a local development of agriculture.

(3) The earliest unequivocal evidence for the introduction of agriculture and the Ne
olithic way of life in the Caucasus is dated to the very early sixth millennium BC in
the Kura and Arax basins (Aratashen-Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture).

Based on several cultural elements (e.g., farming, herding, debitage by pressure-flaking

with lever, imported Mesopotamian pottery), we can infer links between the Aratashen-
Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture and Neolithic cultures in western Asia. However, other ele
ments of the Aratashen-Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture, such as the absence of pottery in
the lowest levels, an abundance of naked wheat, and the genetic variety of sheep and cat
tle, indicate the remarkable uniqueness of the southern Caucasian cultures compared to
those in western Asia at the beginning of the sixth millennium BC.

The hypothesis of uniqueness can be explained in that local hunter-gatherers adopted the
Neolithic way of life through contact with farming groups from western Asia, probably in
the southwestern belt near the Caspian Sea where hexaploid wheat originated. Such
close contacts may have begun at the end of the eighth or the beginning of the seventh
millennium BC, a time when pottery was still unknown in most parts of western Asia. This
would explain the absence of pottery in the earliest phase of the Aratashen-Shulaveri-
Shomutepe culture.

In conclusion, future studies concerning the origin of the Neolithic way of life or Ne
olithization process in the southern Caucasus should address two key issues. The first is
sue involves researching the origin of the Aratashen-Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture. Ongo
ing excavations in the Ararat valley and the Kura basin are revealing the basal layers at
sites such as Aknashen, Masis Blur, and Göy Tepe. This research will likely provide some
insights on the earliest stage of this culture. Early discoveries in this area took place in
October 2013 in Aknashen, Armenia, where a natural level of shallow water basin deposit
30 to 50 cm thick (Horizon VI) was unearthed under the Aknashen-Shulaveri-Shomutepe
cultural layers (Horizons II–V). This natural deposit was above a cultural layer (Horizon
VII) at least 1 m thick. Separated by a hiatus (Horizon VI) from the upper Aknashen-
Shulaveri-Shomutepe layers (Horizons II–V), the material culture of Horizon VII has a
particular character. Its cultural affinity and chronology will be clarified by future studies.

The second issue to be addressed involves the transition to the Neolithic. As mentioned
earlier, the study of the Mesolithic in the southern Caucasus is not yet complete. There
fore, researching the transition from the Mesolithic to Neolithic in the southern Caucasus

Page 28 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

could directly resolve the question of when and how the Neolithization process started in
this region.

References
Abibullaev, O.A. (1982). Eneolit i bronza na territorii Nakhichevanskoj ASSR (Baku: Elm).

Aliyev, T., and Helwing, B. (2009). Kamiltepe in der Milebene. Archäologische Unter
suchungen 2009. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 41: 23–45.

Altinbilek-Algül, C., Astruc, L., Binder, D., and Pelegrin, J. (2012). Pressure Blade Produc
tion with a Lever in the Early and Late Neolithic of the Near East. In Desrosiers, P. (ed.),
The Emergence of Pressure Blade Making: From Origin to Modern Experimentation (New
York: Springer): 157–179.

Amirkhanov, H.A. (1987). Chokhskoe poselenie: chelovek i ego kul’tura v Mezolite i Neo
lite gornogo Dagestana (Moscow: Nauka).

Amirkhanov, H.A. (1994). Adaptation and some aspects of the genesis of archaeological
cultures. Evidence from the Caucasian sites of Early Holocene. Preistoria Alpina 28: 199–
206.

Anderson, P., and Formenti, F. (1996). Exploring the use of abraded obsidian “Çayönü
tools” using experimentation, optical and SEM Microscopy and EDA analysis. Proceed
ings of the 29th International Symposium on Archaeometry (Ankara: Tübitak): 553–566.

Arimura, M., Chataigner, C., and Gasparyan, B. (2010). Kmlo-2. An early Holocene site in
Armenia. Neo-Lithics 2/09: 17–19.

Arimura, M., Gasparyan, B., and Chataigner, C. (2012). Prehistoric sites in Northwest Ar
menia: Kmlo-2 and Tsaghkahovit, In Matthews, R., and Curtis, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the
7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 12–16 April
2010, vol. 3 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz): 135–150.

Arutyunyan, A. (2011). O nekotorykh rezul’tatakh izucheniya neolit-eneoliticheskoj

keramiki Araratskoj ravniny. In: Gambashidze, G. (ed.) Sbornik kratkikh soderzhanij dok
ladov mezhdunarodnoj nauchnoj konferentsii Arkheologiya, etnologiya i fol’kloristika
Kavkaza (Tbilisi: Meridiani): 51–55.

Arutyunyan (Harutyunyan), A., and Mnatsakanyan, A. (2010). Petrograficheskoe izuche

nie neolit-eneoliticheskoj keramiki Araratskoj ravniny. In: Avetisyan, P., and Petrosyan, A.
(eds.) Khaldyan zorutyamb … Hodvatsneri zhoghovatsu nvirvats Boris Piotrovsku 100-
amyakin (Through Ḫaldi’s Power … Studies in Honour of the 100th Anniversary of the
Birth of Boris Piotrovsky) (Yerevan: Gitutyun): 210–224.

Badalyan, R.S. (2010). Obsidian in the Southern Caucasus: The use of raw materials in
the Neolithic to Early Iron Ages. In: Hansen, S., Hauptmann, A., Motzenbäcker, I., and

Page 29 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

Pernicka, E. (eds.), Von Majkop bis Trialeti. Gewinnung und Verbreitung von Metallen und
Obsidian in Kaukasien im 4.—2. Jt. v. Chr. (Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH): 27–38.

Badalyan, R.S., Harutyunyan, A.A., Chataigner, C., Le Mort, F., Chabot, J., Brochier, J., Bal
asescu, A., Radu, V., and Hovsepyan, R. (2010). The Settlement of Aknashen-Khatunarkh,
a Neolithic Site in the Ararat Plain (Armenia): Excavation Results 2004–2009, TÜBA-AR
13: 185–218.

Badalyan, R., Lombard, P., Avetisyan, P., Chataigner, C., Chabot, J., Vila, E., Hovsepyan, R.,
Willcox, G., and Pessin, H. (2007). New data on the late prehistory of the Southern Cauca
sus. The excavations at Aratashen (Armenia): preliminary report. In: Lyonnet, B. (ed.), Les
Cultures du Caucase (VIe—IIIe millénaires avant notre ère). Leurs relations avec le
Proche-Orient (Paris: CNRS éditions, Editions Recherches sur les Civilisations): 37–61.

Badalyan, R., Lombard, P., Chataigner, C., and Avetisyan, P. (2004). The Neolithic and
Chalcolithic phases in the Ararat Plain (Armenia): The view from Aratashen. In: Sagona,
A. (ed.), A View from the Highlands—Archaeological Studies in Honour of Charles Burney,
Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 12 (Leuwen: Peteers): 399–420.

Balasescu, A., Vila, E., Radu, V., Badalyan, R., and Chataigner, C. (2010). Production ani
male et économie de subsistance au Néolithique dans la plaine de l’Ararat (Arménie). An
nales d’Université « Valahia » Târgovişte. Section d’Archéologie et d’Histoire 12(1): 25–
38.

Bar-Oz, G., Belfer-Cohen, A., Meshveliani, T., Jakeli, N., Matskevich, Z., and Bar-Yosef, O.
(2009). Bear in mind: Bear hunting in the Mesolithic of the Southern Caucasus. Archaeol
ogy, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37(1): 15–24.

Budja, M. (2005). The process of Neolithisation in South-eastern Europe: from ceramic fe
male figurines and cereal grains to entoptics and human nuclear DNA polymorphic mark
ers. Documenta Praehistorica 32: 53–72.

Chabot, J., Badalyan, R., and Chataigner, C. (2009). A Neolithic obsidian industry in the
Southern Caucasus region: origins, technology and traceology. In: Moreau, J.-F., Auger, R.,
Chabot, J., and Herzog, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Symposium on Archeometry,
Cahiers d’archéologie du CELAT, 25; Série Archéométrie, 7 (Quebec: CELAT): 151–160.

Chabot, J., and Pelegrin, J. (2012). Two Examples of Pressure Blade Production with a
Lever: Recent Research from the Southern Caucasus (Armenia) and Northern
Mesopotamia (Syria, Iraq). In: Desrosiers, P.M. (ed.), The Emergence of Pressure Knap
ping: From Origin to Modern Experimentation (New York: Springer): 181–198.

Chataigner, C. (1995). La Transcaucasie au Néolithique et au Chalcolithique. BAR Inter

national Series 624 (Oxford: Tempus Reparatum).

Page 30 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

Chataigner, C., and Gratuze, B. (2013). New data on the exploitation of obsidian in the
southern Caucasus (Armenia, Georgia) and eastern Turkey, part 2: obsidian procurement
from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Late Bronze Age. Archaeometry 56(1): 48–69.

Connor, S. (2006). A Promethean legacy: Late Quaternary Vegetation History of Southern

Georgia, Caucasus (University of Melbourne, Ph.D. thesis).

Connor, S., and Kvavadze, E. (2008). Modelling late Quaternary changes in plant distribu
tion, vegetation and climate using pollen data from Georgia, Caucasus. Journal of Bio
geography 36(3): 529–545.

Connor, S., and Sagona, A. (2007). Environment and society in the late prehistory of
southern Georgia, Caucasus. In: Lyonnet, B. (ed.), Les Cultures du Caucase (VIe—IIIe mil
lénaires avant notre ère). Leurs relations avec le Proche-Orient (Paris: CNRS éditions,
Editions Recherches sur les Civilisations): 21–36.

Connor, S., Thomas, I., Kvavadze, E., Arabuli, G., Avakov, G., and Sagona, A. (2004). A sur
vey of modern pollen and vegetation along an altidudinal transect in southern Georgia,
Caucasus region. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 129: 229–250.

Djamali, M., de Beaulieu, J.-L., Shah-Hosseini, M., Andrieu-Ponel, V., Ponel, P., Amini, A.,
Akhani, H., Leroy, S., Stevens, L., Lahijani, H., and Brewer, S. (2008). A late Pleistocene
log pollen record from Lake Urmia, NW Iran. Quaternary Research 69: 413–420.

Dvorak, J., Luo, M.C., Yang, Z.L., and Zhang, H.B. (1998). The structure of the Aegilops
tauschii genepool and the evolution of hexaploid wheat. Theoretical and Applied Genetics
97: 657–670.

Dzhaparidze, O. (1989). Na zare etnokul’turnoj istorii Kavkaza (Tbilisi: University of Tbil

isi).

Dzhaparidze, O., and Djavakhishvili, A. (1971). Kul’tura drevnejshego zemledel’cheskogo

naselenija na territorii Gruzii (Tbilisi: Metsniereba) (in Georgian with Russian summary).

Dzhavakhishvili, A.I. (1973). Stroitel’noe delo i arkhitektura poselenij Yuzhnogo Kavkaza

V—III tys. do n.e. (Tbilisi: Metsniereba).

Formozov, A.A. (1966). Pamjatniki pervobytnogo iskusstva (Moscow: Nauka).

Formozov, A.A. (1977). Problemy etnokul’turnoj istorii kamennogo veka na territorii

evropejskoj chasti SSSR (Moscow: Nauka).

Gabunia, M., and Tsereteli, L. (2003). Mezolit Kavkasshi (The Mesolithic in the Caucasus).
Dziebani 12: 5–30.

Giles, R., and Brown, T. (2006). GluDy allele variations in Aegilops tauschii and Triticum
aestivum: implications for the origins of hexaploid wheats. Theoretical and Applied Genet
ics 112: 1563–1572.

Page 31 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

Gogitidze, S. (1977). Samkhret-sghmosaplet shavizghvistsiretis neolituri kultura (The Ne

olithic culture of the South-Eastern Black Sea Littoral) (Tbilisi: Metsniereba).

Grigolia, G.K. (1977). Centraluri Kolhetis Neoliti: Paluri (The Neolithic of Central Colchis:
Paluri) (Tbilisi: Metsniereba).

Guliyev, F., and Nishiaki, Y. (2012). Excavations at the Neolithic settlement of Göytepe,
the Middle Kura Valley, Azerbaijan, 2008–2009. In Matthews, R., and Curtis, J. (eds.), Pro
ceedings of the 7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East,
12–16 April 2010, vol. 3 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz): 71–84.

Hamon, C. (2008). From Neolithic to Chalcolithic in the Southern Caucasus: Economy and
Macrolithic Implements from Shulaveri-Shomu Sites of Kwemo-Kartli (Georgia). Paléori
ent 34(2): 85–135.

Hansen, S., Mirtskhulava, G., Bastert-Lamprichs, K., Benecke, N., Gatsov, I., and
Nedelcheva, P. (2006). Aruchlo 2005–2006. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in einem ne
olithischen Siedlungshügel. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 38: 1–34.

Hansen, S., Mirtskhulava, G., Bastert-Lamprichs, K., Görsdorf, J., Neumann, D., Ullrich,
M., Gatsov, I., and Nedelcheva, P. (2007). Aruchlo 2007. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen
im neolithischen Siedlungshügel. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 39: 1–
30.

Hovsepyan, R., and Willcox, G. (2008). The earliest finds of cultivated plants in Armenia:
evidence from charred remains and crop processing residues in pisé from the Neolithic
settlements of Aratashen and Aknashen. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 17(1): 63–
71.

Iessen, A.A. (1965). Iz istoricheskogo proshlogo Mil`sko-Karabakhskoj stepi. In: Iessen,

A.A., and Kushnareva, K.Kh. (eds.). Trudy Azerbaydzhanskoj arkheologichesloj ekspedit
sii. Tom II. Materialy i issledovaniya po arkheologii SSSR 125 (Moskva-Leningrad: Nau
ka): 10–35.

Janushevich, Z.V. (1984). The specific composition of wheat finds from ancient agricultur
al centres in the USSR. In W. Van Zeist and W.A. Casparie (eds.), Plants and Ancient Man
(Rotterdam: Balkema): 267–276.

Kavtaradze, G. (1983). K khronologii epokhi eneolita i bronzy Gruzii (Tbilisi: Metsniere

ba).

Kiguradze, T. (1976). Periodizatsiya rannezemledel’cheskoj kul’tury Vostochnogo

Zakavkaz’ya (Tbilisi: Metsniereba) (in Georgian with Russian summary).

Kiguradze, T. (1986). Neolithische Siedlungen von Kvemo-Kartli, Georgien. Materialen zur

Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäologie 29 (München: Verlag C.H. Beck).

Page 32 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

Kiguradze, T. (2001). Caucasian Neolithic. In: Peregrine, P.N., and Ember, M. (eds.), Ency
clopedia of Prehistory, IV: Europe (New York: Kluwer/Plenum): 55–76.

Kiguradze, T., and Menabde, M. (2004). The Neolithic of Georgia. In: Sagona, A. (ed.), A
View from the Highlands. Archaeological Studies in Honour of Charles Burney. Ancient
Near Eastern Studies Supplement 12 (Leuven: Peeters): 345–398.

Kilian, B., Özkan, H., Pozzi, C. and Salamini, F. (2009). Domestication of the Triticeae in
the Fertile Crescent. In Feuillet, C. and Muehlbauer, G.J. (eds.), Genetics and Genomics of
the Triticeae. Plant Genetics and Genomics: Crops and Models, vol. 7 (New York:
Springer): 81–119.

Korfmann, M. (1982). Tilkitepe. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 26 (Tübingen: Verlag Ernst Was

muth).

Korobkova, G.F. (1996). The Neolithic chipped stone industries of the Southern Caucasus.
In: Kozlowski, S.K., and Gebel, H.G.K. (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the
Fertile Crescent, and Their Contemporaries in Adjacent Regions Proceedings of the Se
cond Workshop on PPN Chipped Lithic Industries. Studies in Early Near Eastern Produc
tion, Subsistence, and Environment 3 (Berlin: Ex Oriente): 57–89.

Korobkova, G.F., and Masson, V. (1978). Ponjatie Neolit i voprosy khronologii Neolita
Srednej Azii. Kratkie Soobschenija Instituta Istorii Material’noj Kul’tury 153: 103–108.

Kozlowski, S.K. (1999). The Eastern Wing of the Fertile Crescent: Late Prehistory of
Greater Mesopotamia Lithic Industries. British Archaeological Reports International
Series 760 (Oxford: Archaeopress).

Kushnareva, K.Kh. (1997). The Southern Caucasus in Prehistory: Stages of Cultural and
Socioeconomoc Development from the Eighth to the Second Millennium BC (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press).

Larson, G., and Burger, J. (2013). A population genetics view of animal domestication.
Trends in Genetics 29(4): 197–205.

Lisitsyna, G.N., and Prischepenko, L.V. (1977). Paleo-etnobotanicheskie nakhodki Kavkaza

i Blizhnego Vostoka (Moscow: Nauka).

Lyonnet, B., and Guliyev, F. (2010). Recent Discoveries on the Neolithic and Chalcolithic
of Western Azerbaijan. TÜBA-AR 13: 219–228.

Lyonnet, B., Guliyev, F., Helwing, B., Aliyev, T., Hansen, S., and Mirtskulava, G. (2012). An
cient Kura (2010–2011): the first two seasons of joint field work in the Southern Cauca
sus. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 44: 1–190.

Masson, V.M., Merpert, N.Ya, Munchaev, R.M., and Chernysh, E.K. (1982). Eneolit SSSR.
(Moskva: Nauka).

Page 33 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

Matskevich, Z., and Meshveliani, T. (2009). Perekhod k Neolitu v Zapadnoy Gruzii: Proble
my khronologii i kul’turnykh vzyaimodeystviy. In: Vasil’ev, S.A. (ed.), Mesolithic and Ne
olithic Cultures of Eastern Europe: Interaction and Chronology (St. Petersburg: Institute
of the History of Material Culture): 154–156.

Meliksetian, Kh., Kraus, S., Pernicka, E., Avetisyan, P., Devejian, S., and Petrosyan, L.
(2011). Metallurgy of prehistoric Armenia. In: Yalçin, Ü. (ed.), Anatolian Metal V: Der An
schnitt (Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum Bochum): 201–210.

Meshveliani, T., Bar-Oz, G., Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A., Boaretto, E., Jakeli, N., Ko
ridze, I., and Matskevich, Z. (2007). Mesolithic Hunters at Kotias Klde, western Georgia:
Preliminary Results. Paléorient 33(2): 47–58.

Munchaev, R. (1975). Kavkaz na zare bronzovogo veka (Moscow: Nauka).

Munchaev, R.M., and Merpert, N.Ya. (1981). Rannezemledel`cheskie poseleniya Severnoj

Messopotamii (Moskva: Nauka).

Narimanov, I.G. (1987). Kul’tura drevneyshego zemledel’chesko-skotovodcheskogo nase

leniya Azerbaydzhana (epokha eneolita VI—IV tys. do n.e.) (Baku: Elm).

Nebieridze, L. (1972). Dasavlat amierkavkasiis neoliti (The Neolithic of Western Transcau

casus) (Tbilisi: Institute for History, Archaeology and Ethnography).

Nebieridze, L. (1978). Darkvetis mravalpeniani ekhi (The Darkveti Multilayer Rockshel

ter) (Tbilisi: Metsniereba).

Nebieridze, L. (1986). Dasavlet amierkavkasiis adresamicatmokmedo kulturis ganvitare

bis adreuli sapexurebi (The Early Stages of Development of the Western Caucasian Early
Farming Culture) (Tbilisi: Metsniereba).

Nesbitt, M. (2002). When and where did domesticated cereals first occur in southwest
Asia? In: Cappers, R.T.J., and Bottema, S. (eds.), The Dawn of Farming in the Near East,
Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment, 6 (Berlin: Ex
Oriente): 113–132.

Ollivier, V., Joannin, S., Roiron, P., Nahapetyan, S., and Chataigner, C. (2012). Signatures
et impacts des changements climatiques rapides sur la travertinisation, la morphogénèse
et les sociétés holocènes des régions circumcaspiennes. In: Bertoncello, F., and Braemer,
F. (eds.), Variabilités environnementales, mutations sociales. Nature, Intensités, Echelles
et Temporalités des Changements, XXXIIe rencontres internationales d’archéologie et
d’histoire d’Antibes (Antibes: Editions APDCA): 27–36.

Palumbi, G. (2007). A Preliminary Analysis on the Prehistoric Pottery from Aratashen (Ar
menia). In: Lyonnet, B. (ed.), Les Cultures du Caucase (VIe—IIIe millénaires avant notre
ère). Leurs relations avec le Proche-Orient (Paris: CNRS éditions, Editions Recherches
sur les Civilisations): 63–76.

Page 34 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

Peasnall, B.L., and Rosenberg, M. (2001). A preliminary description of the lithic industry
from Demirköy Höyük. In: Caneva, I., Lemorini, C., Zampetti, D., and Biagi, P. (eds.), Be
yond Tools (Berlin: Ex Oriente): 363–387.

Petersen, G., Seberg, O., Yde, M., and Berthelsen, K. (2006). Phylogenetic relationships of
Triticum and Aegilops and evidence for the origin of the A, B, and D genomes of common
wheat (Triticum aestivum). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 39: 70–82.

Rustamov, D.N., and Muradova, F.M. (1972). Raboty v Gobustane. Arkheologicheskie

Otkrytija 1971 g.: 477–478.

Rustamov, D.N., and Muradova, F.M. (1978). Kjaniza—stojanka kamennogo veka. Arkheo
logicheskie i etnograficheskie izyskanija v Aserbajdzhane (1975 g.): 5–10.

Sardaryan, S. (1967). Nakhnadaryan hasarakutyune Hayastanum (Primitive society in Ar

menia) (Yerevan: Mitk).

Schoop, U.-D. (1999). Aspects of early metal use in neolithic Mesopotamia. In: Haupt
mann, A., Pernicka, E., Rehren, T., and Yalçin, Ü. (eds.), The Beginnings of Metallurgy
(Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum Bochum): 31–36.

Soltysiak, A., and Fazeli Nashli, H. (2010). Short Fieldwork Report: Tepe Sialk (Iran), sea
sons 2008–2009. Bioarchaeology of the Near East 4: 69–73.

Wechler, K.-P. (2001). Studien zum Neolithikum der osteuropäischen Steppe, Archäologie
in Eurasien 12 (Mainz: Ph. von Zabern).

Wick, L., Lemke, G., and Sturm, M. (2003). Evidence of Lateglacial and Holocene climatic
change and human impact in eastern Anatolia: high resolution pollen, charcoal, isotopic
and geochemical records from the laminated sediments of Lake Vab, Turkey. The
Holocene 13: 665–675.

Zohary, D., and Hopf, M. (2004). Domestication of Plants in the Old World—The Origin
and Spread of Cultivated Plants in West Asia, Europe, and the Nile Valley (New York: Ox
ford University Press).

Zvelebil, M., and Lillie, M. (2000). Transition to agriculture in eastern Europe. In: Price,
T.D. (ed.), Europe’s First Farmers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 57–92.

Christine Chataigner

Christine Chataigner, Archeorient – UMR 5133, CNRS – Université Lyon 2, France.

Ruben Badalyan

Ruben Badalyan, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, NAS Armenia, Yerevan,

Armenia.

Makoto Arimura

Page 35 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

The Neolithic of the Caucasus

Makoto Arimura, Kanazawa University, Japan.

Page 36 of 36

date: 10 March 2020

Claessen - Skalnik 1978 Early State
No ratings yet
Claessen - Skalnik 1978 Early State
703 pages
TEMA 2 Preh2 23
No ratings yet
TEMA 2 Preh2 23
9 pages
Archaeological Theory An Introduction 2nd Edition Matthew Johnson Latest PDF 2025
No ratings yet
Archaeological Theory An Introduction 2nd Edition Matthew Johnson Latest PDF 2025
72 pages
Ceramic Sequences at Tres Zapotes, Veracruz Mexico
No ratings yet
Ceramic Sequences at Tres Zapotes, Veracruz Mexico
118 pages
Interview With Cedric Boeckx
100% (1)
Interview With Cedric Boeckx
29 pages
1 s2.0 S0305440315001028 Main PDF
No ratings yet
1 s2.0 S0305440315001028 Main PDF
14 pages
WOBST - 1977 - Stylistic Behaviour and Information Exchange
No ratings yet
WOBST - 1977 - Stylistic Behaviour and Information Exchange
14 pages
Maya Stelae of Uxbenka
No ratings yet
Maya Stelae of Uxbenka
56 pages
Atti Della Società Per La Preistoria e Protostoria Della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia. Volume XVI, 2006-2007. Trieste
100% (1)
Atti Della Società Per La Preistoria e Protostoria Della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia. Volume XVI, 2006-2007. Trieste
139 pages
The Haykazunis and The Kingdom of Van (Ararat-Urartu)
100% (2)
The Haykazunis and The Kingdom of Van (Ararat-Urartu)
24 pages
Sediment Characterization in Deltas Using Electrical Resistivity Tomography - The Ebro Delta Case - Parte1
No ratings yet
Sediment Characterization in Deltas Using Electrical Resistivity Tomography - The Ebro Delta Case - Parte1
4 pages
The Tai' Plaque and Calendrical Notation in The Upper Palaeolithic
No ratings yet
The Tai' Plaque and Calendrical Notation in The Upper Palaeolithic
37 pages
Ancient Egypt
100% (1)
Ancient Egypt
60 pages
The Passive Voice in Vulgar Latin
No ratings yet
The Passive Voice in Vulgar Latin
26 pages
Communication and Exchange Between The N PDF
No ratings yet
Communication and Exchange Between The N PDF
20 pages
Artefactos de Metal de Mesoamerica, Pendergast.1962
No ratings yet
Artefactos de Metal de Mesoamerica, Pendergast.1962
27 pages
Cultural Variables. Part Two
No ratings yet
Cultural Variables. Part Two
17 pages
Discovering Southern African Rock Art (Southern African - James David Lewis-Williams - Southern African Archaeology Series, 4th Impression, Cape - 9780864861672 - Anna's Arc
No ratings yet
Discovering Southern African Rock Art (Southern African - James David Lewis-Williams - Southern African Archaeology Series, 4th Impression, Cape - 9780864861672 - Anna's Arc
114 pages
Gifford 1960 Tipo-Variedad
No ratings yet
Gifford 1960 Tipo-Variedad
9 pages
Chilton 1998
No ratings yet
Chilton 1998
16 pages
Levin, Harry. La Literatura Como Institución
100% (1)
Levin, Harry. La Literatura Como Institución
3 pages
Kiss AegaeumBETWEEI/ THE AEGEAN AND BALTIC SEAS PREHISTORY ACROSS BORDERS
No ratings yet
Kiss AegaeumBETWEEI/ THE AEGEAN AND BALTIC SEAS PREHISTORY ACROSS BORDERS
20 pages
Prehistoric Cave Art - Lascaux
No ratings yet
Prehistoric Cave Art - Lascaux
22 pages
Binford 1962 Archaeology As Anthropology PDF
No ratings yet
Binford 1962 Archaeology As Anthropology PDF
10 pages
Tula
No ratings yet
Tula
34 pages
A Late Neolithic Station With Painted Pottery in Bukowina
No ratings yet
A Late Neolithic Station With Painted Pottery in Bukowina
32 pages
Dean & Leibsohn - Hybridity and Its Discontents Considering Visual Culture in Colonial Spanish America
No ratings yet
Dean & Leibsohn - Hybridity and Its Discontents Considering Visual Culture in Colonial Spanish America
33 pages
Jacobs 2009 Catalysts For Stone Age
100% (1)
Jacobs 2009 Catalysts For Stone Age
3 pages
Harvey Materiality of State Effects
No ratings yet
Harvey Materiality of State Effects
11 pages
Nordic Bronze Age Cosmology
No ratings yet
Nordic Bronze Age Cosmology
14 pages
Krieger 1944
No ratings yet
Krieger 1944
19 pages
Amazon Chiefdoms: Rise & Fall
No ratings yet
Amazon Chiefdoms: Rise & Fall
30 pages
Edgar Nebot García - Tlatilco - Los Herederos de La Cultura Tenocelome-121-131
No ratings yet
Edgar Nebot García - Tlatilco - Los Herederos de La Cultura Tenocelome-121-131
17 pages
Lemonnier 1992a - Elements For An Anthropology of Technology
No ratings yet
Lemonnier 1992a - Elements For An Anthropology of Technology
145 pages
Written and Illustrated By: Phillip Martin
100% (1)
Written and Illustrated By: Phillip Martin
9 pages
Connected Histories: The Dynamics of Bronze Age Interaction and Trade 1500-1100 BC
No ratings yet
Connected Histories: The Dynamics of Bronze Age Interaction and Trade 1500-1100 BC
32 pages
Alan S. Kaye - Phonologies of Asia and Africa (Including The Caucasus) Volume 1&2
No ratings yet
Alan S. Kaye - Phonologies of Asia and Africa (Including The Caucasus) Volume 1&2
1,074 pages
Wace, H. (1961) - Ivories From Mycenae, Number 1 - The Ivory Trio. British Book Centre
No ratings yet
Wace, H. (1961) - Ivories From Mycenae, Number 1 - The Ivory Trio. British Book Centre
10 pages
Historical Geographies of Anarchism
No ratings yet
Historical Geographies of Anarchism
255 pages
Dietler y Herbich 1998
No ratings yet
Dietler y Herbich 1998
16 pages
Neolithic Iran: Origins & Sites
No ratings yet
Neolithic Iran: Origins & Sites
10 pages
CatalHuyuk SDaly
No ratings yet
CatalHuyuk SDaly
74 pages
Citation Needed: Coliboaia Cave
No ratings yet
Citation Needed: Coliboaia Cave
3 pages
Chapter 01
No ratings yet
Chapter 01
19 pages
Rethinking Celtic Art Duncan Garrow 2025 PDF Download
100% (1)
Rethinking Celtic Art Duncan Garrow 2025 PDF Download
142 pages
Paleolithic Venus
No ratings yet
Paleolithic Venus
8 pages
Vocal Anthropology Feld Fox Porcello Samuels
No ratings yet
Vocal Anthropology Feld Fox Porcello Samuels
14 pages
Speleothems of Çatalhöyük, Turkey
No ratings yet
Speleothems of Çatalhöyük, Turkey
10 pages
Eranian Linguistic
No ratings yet
Eranian Linguistic
131 pages
APAD Baysal
No ratings yet
APAD Baysal
40 pages
Lewis Williams Dow Son Signs of All Times
No ratings yet
Lewis Williams Dow Son Signs of All Times
46 pages
THORNDYKE Little Known Astronomical MSS
0% (1)
THORNDYKE Little Known Astronomical MSS
33 pages
Timothy Earle - The Evolution of Chiefdoms
No ratings yet
Timothy Earle - The Evolution of Chiefdoms
6 pages
Rethinking Mediterranean History
No ratings yet
Rethinking Mediterranean History
15 pages
Lithic Tech
No ratings yet
Lithic Tech
8 pages
Georgia's Geopolitical Crossroads
100% (1)
Georgia's Geopolitical Crossroads
8 pages
Earliest Global Palaeoart Evidence
No ratings yet
Earliest Global Palaeoart Evidence
48 pages
Divining The Etruscan World The Brontoscopic Calendar and Religious Practice 1st Edition Jean Macintosh Turfa PDF Download
No ratings yet
Divining The Etruscan World The Brontoscopic Calendar and Religious Practice 1st Edition Jean Macintosh Turfa PDF Download
52 pages
Vol - I Silk Road - Upper Palaeolithic Cultures
No ratings yet
Vol - I Silk Road - Upper Palaeolithic Cultures
20 pages
Population Af Finities of The Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample: Limb Proportion Evidence
No ratings yet
Population Af Finities of The Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample: Limb Proportion Evidence
11 pages
British Museum-Hieroglyphic Texts From Egyptian Stelae-1-1961 PDF
100% (1)
British Museum-Hieroglyphic Texts From Egyptian Stelae-1-1961 PDF
148 pages
K.A Kitchen, Two Donation Stelae
No ratings yet
K.A Kitchen, Two Donation Stelae
14 pages
Sex Pots: 50 Shades of Moche
No ratings yet
Sex Pots: 50 Shades of Moche
5 pages
Crowdsourcing in Archaeology
No ratings yet
Crowdsourcing in Archaeology
2 pages
Consideration of The Origin of Herbert Simon's Theory of "Satisficing" (1933-1947)
No ratings yet
Consideration of The Origin of Herbert Simon's Theory of "Satisficing" (1933-1947)
17 pages
Shattered Dreams Port Stella Ivy Penn PDF Download
100% (1)
Shattered Dreams Port Stella Ivy Penn PDF Download
33 pages
Sindhu Saraswati Civilization 100 Questions
No ratings yet
Sindhu Saraswati Civilization 100 Questions
5 pages
Bricks Beads and Bones MCQs
100% (1)
Bricks Beads and Bones MCQs
4 pages
Tunneling Methods 5
No ratings yet
Tunneling Methods 5
32 pages
Rouse On The Typological Method
No ratings yet
Rouse On The Typological Method
4 pages
Readings of Philippine History Reviewer
No ratings yet
Readings of Philippine History Reviewer
10 pages
The History of Southern Africa
No ratings yet
The History of Southern Africa
240 pages
(1902) The Argive Heraeum (Volume 1)
No ratings yet
(1902) The Argive Heraeum (Volume 1)
398 pages
Main Menu: History
No ratings yet
Main Menu: History
12 pages
2004 Ptests 3 PDF
No ratings yet
2004 Ptests 3 PDF
23 pages
Dhola Vira
No ratings yet
Dhola Vira
6 pages
Egypt Literature 2003 Simpson
100% (1)
Egypt Literature 2003 Simpson
7 pages
James G. Fraser - The Golden Bough - Vol. 2
100% (2)
James G. Fraser - The Golden Bough - Vol. 2
442 pages
Danes and Jutes Dan and Judah-Dan
100% (1)
Danes and Jutes Dan and Judah-Dan
7 pages
The Later Bronze Age in The British Isles and North-Western France
No ratings yet
The Later Bronze Age in The British Isles and North-Western France
46 pages
Gepidic Transylvania: Archaeological Insights
No ratings yet
Gepidic Transylvania: Archaeological Insights
9 pages
The Setting of The Gilgamesh Epic
No ratings yet
The Setting of The Gilgamesh Epic
2 pages
MEES The Celts and The Origin of The Run - Onbekend
100% (2)
MEES The Celts and The Origin of The Run - Onbekend
13 pages
Sir Mortimar Wheeler
No ratings yet
Sir Mortimar Wheeler
14 pages
AQY Volume 94 Issue 374 Editorial
No ratings yet
AQY Volume 94 Issue 374 Editorial
9 pages
Cultural Tourism Boost for Izapa
No ratings yet
Cultural Tourism Boost for Izapa
27 pages
"Britain Begins" by Barry Cunliffe - Reviewed by Tom Shippey
No ratings yet
"Britain Begins" by Barry Cunliffe - Reviewed by Tom Shippey
3 pages
Art of Pottery
No ratings yet
Art of Pottery
12 pages
All About History Book of Vikings 2nd Edition
91% (22)
All About History Book of Vikings 2nd Edition
164 pages