Volume 119, Number 3
July 2015

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

ARCHAEOLOGYThe Journal of the Archaeological Institute of America

www.ajaonline.org

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

ARCHAEOLOGY
656 Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02215 • Tel.: 617-353-9361 • www.ajaonline.org

This article is © The Archaeological Institute of America and was originally published in AJA
119(3):279–294.

This e-print is supplied to the author for noncommercial use only, following the terms outlinedin the accompanying cover letter. The definitive electronic version of the article can be found at:www.jstor.org/stable/10.3764/aja.119.3.0279.

article

Chronological Contexts of the
Earliest Pottery Neolithic in theSouth Caucasus: Radiocarbon
Dates for Göytepe and Hacı
Elamxanlı Tepe, Azerbaijan
yoshihiro nishiaki, farhad guliyev, andseiji kadowaki
Includes Supplementary Content on AJA Online

Research on the earliest Neolithic in the South Caucasus is still in its early stages.
Establishing a solid chronological framework will help determine the timing of theemergence and subsequent development of regional Neolithic societies. This article
reports on 46 radiocarbon dates obtained from the two recently excavated Early Pottery Neolithic sites of Göytepe and Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, the oldest farming villages
known to date in West Azerbaijan. Comparing the dates from other related sites
demonstrates that several settlements representing the earliest Pottery Neolithic
emerged almost simultaneously at the beginning of the sixth millennium B.C.E. inthe northern and southern foothills of the Lesser Caucasus Mountains. The lack ofevidence for plant cultivation or animal husbandry at earlier sites suggests a foreign
origin for agricultural economies in the South Caucasus. However, cultural items
characterizing the initial agropastoral communities were not brought to the region
as a package. Instead, we suggest that these early farming communities—that is, theShomutepe-Shulaveri—underwent gradual but significant autochthonous developments likely deriving from the aceramic stage. The chronological framework provided
by Göytepe and Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe serves as a reference point for identifying detailsof early farmers’ cultural developments in the South Caucasus.1

introduction: issues surrounding neolithization in thesouth caucasus
Archaeological research over the last few decades has shown that the first
Neolithic societies developed as early as the 10th to ninth millennia B.C.E.
in the Middle East, particularly in regions on the southeastern flanks of
the Anatolian Mountains and farther south.2 While the details of these initial Neolithization processes need further clarification, current research isalso being directed toward understanding the processes that took place inAmerican Journal of Archaeology
Volume 119, Number 3
July 2015
Pages 279–94
DOI: 10.3764/aja.119.3.0279

www.ajaonline.org

1
Our deep thanks go to Maisa N. Ragimova, director of the Institute of Archaeology
and Ethnography, the National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan, for permitting ourarchaeological work. We also thank the members of the Azerbaijan-Japan joint mission
for their collaboration during the research, in particular Fuad Huseinov, Valeh Alakbarov, Shahin Salimbayov, Kazuya Shimogama, Chie Akashi, Takehiro Miki, and Saiji
Arai. Financial support for this research was provided by grants from the Japan Society for Promotion of Sciences (24251014, 26770265). All figures are our own. A free,downloadable appendix can be found under this article’s abstract on AJA Online (www.
ajaonline.org).
2
See, e.g., Zeder 2008, 2011; Willcox 2013.

279© 2015 Archaeological Institute of America

280

Y. NISHIAKI ET AL.

neighboring regions and their relationship with the
Neolithization processes in the Middle East. The mostthoroughly studied issue has clearly been the dispersal west toward Europe, whereas our understandingof when and how Neolithic societies emerged in thenorthern, eastern, and southern regions is less satisfactory.3 The South Caucasus represents one such region
holding the potential for more intensive investigations
into these matters.
The first goals must be to securely define the cultural remains associated with subsistence records andto clarify the chronology of Neolithic settlements in
the region. Research in the 1960s and 1970s revealed
the existence of fully fledged agricultural settlementsin the South Caucasus—notably, along the Araxes andKura Valleys.4 Excavations at sites such as Shomutepe
and Shulaveris Gora led to the recovery of circularmudbrick buildings and typical Pottery Neolithic materials (defined as the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture),5
including groundstones and domesticated plants andanimals. Although these early finds led some authors tosuggest links with northern Mesopotamia at the onsetof the farming economy in the region,6 the view has
long remained a mere suggestion. Even the chronological position of these earliest agricultural settlements has
been left uncertain, although a period from the fifth tofourth millennia B.C.E. was originally proposed basedon uncalibrated radiocarbon dates, many of whichwere derived from uncertain archaeological contexts.7
Another important goal should be to interpret relations in the cultural and socioeconomic spheres between the Shomutepe-Shulaveri farmers and the local
Mesolithic foragers.8 Attempting to fill a gap in thechrono-cultural sequence, Kiguradze and Menabde
proposed a transitional stage based on the aceramic/
Early Neolithic sites or the Proto-Neolithic sites reported in western (e.g., Anaseuli I, Paluri, Nagutni,
Darkveti) and southeastern (e.g., Dmanisi and sites
near Lake Paravani) Georgia.9 But these sites were
attributed to the Neolithic based solely on technotypological characteristics of chipped stones. An exception is Darkveti layer IV, where some cultigens
and domesticated animals were reportedly discovered,though the details are not yet confirmed.10 Lithic

Bellwood 2005; Zohary et al. 2012.
Kiguradze 1986; Narimanov 1987.
5
The terminology in this article follows Narimanov 1987,
192.
6
Abibullayev 1959; Munchaev 1982.
7
Munchaev 1982; Narimanov 1987.
8
Kozlowski 1996.
9
Kiguradze and Menabde 2004, 362.
10
Nebieridze 1978 (cited in Korobkova 1996); Kiguradze
and Menabde 2004.
3
4© 2015 Archaeological Institute of America[AJA 119assemblages from these sites were differentiated from
the Mesolithic by the scarcity of microlithic components and from the Shomutepe-Shulaveri by the lackof “an advanced blade technique.”11 In addition, Kiguradze and Menabde considered a specific tool type—hooked tools—which is characterized by squamous,
subparallel blunting retouch on both lateral sides. Theysuggested that this tool type is similar in morphology
and retouching technique to those from some Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites in southeast Anatolia (e.g., Çayönü)
and northern Iraq (e.g., Tell Magzalia, Tell Shimshara)and thus proposed a cultural and chronological link.
The identification of the aceramic/Early Neolithic
or Proto-Neolithic has profound implications for understanding the Neolithization processes in the South
Caucasus. If this phase in fact exists and represents the“transition” between the Mesolithic and ShomutepeShulaveri, it indicates that indigenous foraging groups
played a significant role in the formation of local
farming societies. However, they may have received
allochthonous cultural influences from the Middle
East, as implied by the hooked tools. This important
issue has recently led some researchers to reinvestigate
the aceramic/Early Neolithic sites in western (e.g.,Anaseuli I, Paluri) and southern (Paravani) Georgia.12
These reinvestigations did not recover well-preserved
assemblages of artifacts/ecofacts or radiocarbon dates
that would verify the “aceramic Neolithic” attribution,
but they confirmed that the sites mostly consist of thincultural deposits that are often disturbed.
Similarly, the same issue also promoted excavationsof new sites in the search for Neolithic deposits dated
earlier than the Shomutepe-Shulaveri phase. Such sites
include Kotias Klde Cave in western Georgia and theKmlo-2 Rock Shelter in western Armenia. Kotias Klde
contains stratified deposits including the Neolithic
layer (A2) overlying the Mesolithic one (B).13 Meshveliani et al.’s brief report on the Neolithic layer mentions some characteristics of chipped stones, includingtransverse arrowheads/trapezes, ventrally retoucheddenticulates, and flake scrapers. Because such a toolcomposition is reportedly similar to assemblages fromthe Darkveti Rock Shelter and Paluri (aceramic/Early
Neolithic sites), radiocarbon dating as well as cultural/subsistence remains from layer A2 should provide
significant data for verifying the aceramic/Early Neolithic phase in the South Caucasus.
In this respect, more detailed information is available from the Kmlo-2 Rock Shelter.14 As for the lithics,

Kiguradze and Menabde 2004, 360.
Meshveliani 2013; Arimura 2014.
13
Meshveliani et al. 2007.
14
Arimura et al. 2009, 2010.
11
12

2015]RADIOCARBON DATES FOR THE NEOLITHIC IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS

the tool composition at Kmlo-2 is characterized bya high proportion (30%) of microliths dominatedby backed bladelets and scalene bladelets with somegeometric forms. It also includes “Kmlo tools,” a tool
type defined by continuous, parallel retouch by pressure flaking on lateral sides. Because this type is reminiscent of the hooked tools mentioned above, it was
analyzed in detail for raw material sources, technotypology, and use wear. Although reported results suggest differences in the details of such technologicalbehaviors between the hooked tools/Kmlo tools andthe Çayönü tools, the two are at least partly contemporary. According to radiocarbon dates from Kmlo2, Kmlo tools occur frequently in deposits dated tothe end of the ninth into the eighth millennium cal
B.C.E., as in the Middle East, but they also appear inupper layers dated to the fifth millennium cal B.C.E.,
in association with Chalcolithic sherds. Furthermore,
the faunal and botanical remains from Kmlo-2 include
no domesticated species.
Kmlo-2 has been designated equivocally as “Mesolithic/Early Neolithic” in the report.15 However, theserecent findings on the chronology, material culture,and subsistence practices of the site (e.g., high proportion of microliths; absence of groundstones, architecture, or figurative objects; exploitation of only wild
plants and animals) collectively indicate its greater
similarity to the Mesolithic than to the aceramic/Early
Neolithic, at least in the sense used in the Neolithization scenario for the Middle East.16 Moreover, even if
one might regard Kmlo culture as Early Neolithic, theradiocarbon dates mentioned above indicate that thisculture coexisted with the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture during the sixth millennium cal B.C.E., representing a significantly different cultural group. The Kmlo
culture was probably a localized culture developed by
Early to Middle Holocene foragers in the Armenian
highlands. Yet, such local aceramic communities may
have maintained contacts with the Neolithic communities in the Middle East in a period before the fully
Neolithic Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture appeared.
The possibility exists that parts of communities suchas the Kmlo-2 culture contributed to the formation of
the latter even though others maintained a foraging
subsistence strategy.
Under these circumstances, the beginning of the
Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture has served as a kind of
terminus ante quem for the initial development offarming communities in the South Caucasus, for which
new important records have become available from recent excavations, including the excavations at Göytepe

15
16

Arimura et al. 2010.
Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 2008.

© 2015 Archaeological Institute of America

281

and Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe reported here. These newrecords are part of the results of archaeological investigations along the Kura and Araxes Valleys, whichhave greatly increased since the 1990s (fig. 1). First,
the introduction of well-equipped research campaigns
by the Armenian-French archaeological mission revealed that the earliest farming society, represented byPottery Neolithic assemblages, reached to at least thesouthern foothills of the Lesser Caucasus Mountains
at the onset of the sixth millennium B.C.E.17 Subsequently, comparable research projects followed in theKura Valley of southeastern Georgia18 and West Azerbaijan19 and the Mil Plain in southern Azerbaijan.20
Recent investigations in the Middle Kura Valley areof particular interest because the region represents
the heartland of the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture.21
In this article, we present the most recent results
obtained by the Azerbaijani-Japanese archaeologicalmission in the Middle Kura Valley with a particularfocus on the chronology of the earliest Pottery Neolithic assemblages. We present a set of 46 radiocarbon
dates from the two newly excavated Neolithic sites of
Göytepe and Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe following a summary of current knowledge on the Shomutepe-Shulaveri
culture and our investigations at these two sites. Combining the stratigraphies of these two sites provides along sequence covering the earliest Pottery Neolithic
phases. Radiocarbon dates from both sequences help
establish a chronological framework for tracing Neolithic cultural developments in the northern foothillsof the Lesser Caucasus. Last, we discuss how theseresults will help us develop future investigations of
the aceramic/Early Neolithic stage and will promote
our understanding of Neolithization processes in theSouth Caucasus.

the shomutepe-shulaveri culture of thepottery neolithic
The Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture was defined after
two eponymous sites excavated in the 1960s: Shomutepe
in Azerbaijan and Shulaveris Gora in Georgia.22 Settlements assigned to this culture are densely distributedin the Middle Kura Valley, which is located mainly in
Azerbaijan and southeastern Georgia (see fig. 1). The
architecture of those settlements is characterized by circular buildings ranging from 2 to 4 m in diameter. The

17
Badalyan et al. 2007, 2010; Hovsepyan and Willcox 2008;
Arimura et al. 2010; Chataigner et al. 2012.
18
Hansen et al. 2006, 2007; Hansen and Mirtskhulava 2012.
19
Lyonnet and Guliyev 2010; Museibli 2011; Guliyev andNishiaki 2012.
20
Helwing and Aliyev 2012.
21
Kiguradze 1986; Narimanov 1987.
22
Kiguradze 1986; Narimanov 1987.

282

Y. NISHIAKI ET AL.

[AJA 119

fig. 1. Neolithic sites of the South Caucasus mentioned in the text. Stars mark Göytepe and Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe; dots indicate
related sites; squares indicate capital cities.

buildings are connected by a curvilinear mudbrick wall,
forming a circular compound enclosing a courtyard.23
Hearths, bins, and other domestic features were foundin the courtyard, which probably served as a daily activity space. A typical settlement, a relatively small moundno more than 2 ha, is composed of a series of such domestic compounds. The material assemblages include
all the items considered classic for the Neolithic: pottery; flaked, ground, and polished stone artifacts; bonetools; and domesticated plant and animal remains.
Plain ware is the predominant pottery type, but alsopresent are a small number of decorated vessels withapplied relief and incisions. Mineral-tempered ware isreportedly more common in the earlier phase of thisculture, and plant-tempered wares are more common
in the later phase.24 With regard to the lithic industry,
the most characteristic tools are pressure-flaked blades
made of obsidian that was procured mainly from sources in the Lesser Caucasus. Developments in the bonetool industry are also diagnostic of this cultural entity,
as attested by a large variety of tool forms such as awls,
hoes, hammers, spatulas, and picks.
While the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture was defined
based on archaeological records from the Middle Kura

Valley, the distribution of comparable cultural assemblages is now known across a wider area. Instead of extending into the Lower Kura Valley,25 they occur in the
Araxes Valley south of the Lesser Caucasus (see fig. 1).
The site of Kültepe-Nakhichevan, excavated as early as
1951, already yielded similar architecture and materials. Notably, the pottery assemblage included imported
Halafian painted vessels. This evidence pointed to direct relationships with regions farther south,26 which
had never been known in the Kura Valley. Recent
research upstream in the Araxes Valley on the Ararat
Plain has recovered more examples of assemblages
reminiscent of the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture at
Aratashen, Aknashen,27 and Masis Blur.28 Moreover,this work confirmed the occurrence of pottery imported from Upper Mesopotamia, including Hassuna andSamarra types found in the Araxes Valley.29
The Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture was once dated to
the fifth and fourth millennia B.C.E.30 However, sincemore reliable calibrated dates became available in the
2000s, the culture has been thought to date instead to

Helwing and Aliyev 2012.
Abibullayev 1959.
27
Badalyan et al. 2007, 2010.
28
Martirosyan-Olshansky et al. 2013.
29
Badalyan et al. 2010.
30
Kiguradze 1986; Narimanov 1987.
25
26

23
24

Munchaev 1982.
Kiguradze 1986; Chataigner 1995.

© 2015 Archaeological Institute of America

2015]RADIOCARBON DATES FOR THE NEOLITHIC IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS

the sixth millennium B.C.E. Opinion on whether thisculture persisted into the fifth millennium B.C.E. varies among authors.31 Acknowledging the early stageof this research, we clearly need to develop a higherresolution chronological framework of ShomutepeShulaveri cultural developments, which should help
us obtain insights into the derivation of this cultural
entity. Discussions about their possible correlation toother events including climatic changes32 and interaction with societies in the Middle East also require achronological comparison based on secure absolutedates. The two deeply stratified sites in the Middle Kura
Valley, Göytepe and Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, provide thestratigraphic sequences for such investigations.

283

Göytepe and Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe are situated approximately 40 km east of Shomutepe, West Azerbaijan (see fig. 1). Göytepe represents one of the largest
mounds known in the Middle Kura Valley, measuring
approximately 145 m in diameter and 8 m in height (fig.
2). This mound was identified as a Neolithic site during a survey in the 1960s33 and was confirmed througha stratigraphic section exposed by an AzerbaijaniFrench mission in 2006. From 2008 onward, it has
been subjected to more extensive investigations by the
Azerbaijani-Japanese mission.34 A large exposure consisting of 10 excavation squares measuring 10 × 10 m
each has been made on top of the mound’s northernslope. The single square 4B at the northeastern edge
was excavated down to virgin soil. These operations
revealed 11 m of Neolithic deposits consisting of 14
architectural levels, all of which are assignable to the
Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture without any breaks in
occupation (see fig. 2).
This impressive sequence is unparalleled at any other regional Neolithic site and provides us with the firstopportunity to examine chronological developmentsof the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture at a single locality
over a long period of time. Our preliminary analyses
already hinted at a great deal of diachronic variability
present in the artifact assemblages. The best example
is seen in the pottery industry (fig. 3a–e).35 Pottery wasrare in the lowest levels but rapidly increased from the
middle part of the sequence onward. The earlier pottery assemblages are also characterized by the almost
exclusive use of mineral-tempered pottery (see fig.

3a, c, e), while the later ones showed more prevalentuse of plant-tempered pottery (see fig. 3b, d). Decorative motifs on vessels also increased in the later levels.
The previous techno-stylistic studies of pottery identified five developmental phases for the ShomutepeShulaveri pottery industry.36 The stratified assemblages
with secure radiocarbon dates from Göytepe are aninvaluable source of information for reevaluating thisfive-stage periodization.
Along with Shomutepe, Aruchlo, Mentesh, Hassansu, and others (see fig. 1), Göytepe represents
one of the oldest agricultural villages thus far known
in the region. In an effort to look for earlier sites potentially related to the origin of these settlements, theAzerbaijani-Japanese mission started a regional survey in 2011, which resulted in the discovery of Hacı
Elamxanlı Tepe. Situated only 1.5 km northwest of
Göytepe (see fig. 1), this small mound is 60 × 80 m
in diameter with a height of 1.5 m above the groundsurface. The abundance of chipped-stone artifacts
with Neolithic characteristics and the extremely rareoccurrence of sherds in the surface samples suggested
a possibly earlier date for Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe. Threeseasons of excavations were carried out between 2012
and 2014 to test this hypothesis.37
At Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, four 5 × 5 m squares wereexcavated to virgin soil at a depth of 1.5 m (fig. 4). Fourarchitectural levels have been defined. The architectural remains consist of circular mudbrick buildings
similar to Göytepe, but their configuration differs inthat one small circular structure (ca. 3 m in diameter)
abuts a larger one (ca. 5 m in diameter), making asnowman-shaped floor plan.38 This distinct architectural plan, recovered in all levels of Hacı Elamxanlı
Tepe, has never been attested at Göytepe. However,
the architecture thus far defined at Göytepe is based
only on data from the upper levels (levels 1–5), because current excavations of the lower levels are limited to an area too small to determine the complete
architectural layout (see fig. 2). Accordingly, future excavations of the lower levels of Göytepe might produce
comparable architectural remains. In fact, this is quite
likely considering that comparable “snowman-shaped”
building complexes have been reported at Aruchlo,
where occupations contemporaneous with the lower
levels of Göytepe have been exposed.39
Our excavations confirmed the rarity of pottery at Hacı
Elamxanlı Tepe; only two dozen pieces were recovered

Connor and Sagona 2007; Lyonnet 2007; Hamon 2008.
Connor and Sagona 2007.
33
Narimanov 1987.
34
Guliyev et al. 2011; Guliyev and Nishiaki 2012; Kadowaki
et al. 2015.
35
Arimatsu 2014.

Kiguradze 1986; Chatigner 1995.
Nishiaki et al. (forthcoming).
38
The plan could also be referred to as “8-shaped.” However, one of the circular structures is always smaller than theother, differing from the 8 shape.
39
Hansen and Mirtskhulava 2012, 61–2.

the neolithic sites of göytepe and hacı
elamxanlı tepe31
32

© 2015 Archaeological Institute of America

36
37

284

Y. NISHIAKI ET AL.

[AJA 119

fig. 2. The plan and stratigraphy of Göytepe. The stratigraphy shows the east wall of squares 4B–99B. The vertical scale is twice
the size of the horizontal scale (L = level).

from four occupation levels. The majority is plain
mineral-tempered pottery resembling wares in thelowest levels of Göytepe. However, it is significant thatthe pottery assemblage included two pieces of finepainted ware reminiscent of Upper Mesopotamian traditions, such as Samarra and Early Halaf, whose pasteand decoration patterns strongly suggest their origin
in other remote regions (see fig. 3f, g). Comparable
painted pottery was never found in the much larger
pottery assemblages from Göytepe or any other sites
in the Middle Kura. Instead, as mentioned earlier,parallels are known only from the Araxes Valley.40 The
discovery at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe therefore represents
the first example of this pottery type from the north,suggesting that contact with contemporaneous societies in Upper Mesopotamia extended to the northernside of the Lesser Caucasus. Likewise, the lithic industry
also shows similarities and dissimilarities to Göytepe. It
contains numerous trapezes and steep round scrapers,
both of which are represented much less frequently at
Göytepe.41 These observations suggest that the culturalphase discovered at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe quite likely
precedes the Shomutepe-Shulaveri phase at Göytepe,although the clear presence of domesticated plant andanimal remains shows that it had a farming economy.42

Badalyan et al. 2010.
Nishiaki et al. (forthcoming).
42
Nishiaki et al. (forthcoming).
40
41© 2015 Archaeological Institute of America

fig. 3. Pottery from Göytepe (a–e) and Hacı Elamxanlı
Tepe (f–h). Parts a (level 5), c, and e (level 11) are mineraltempered ware; parts b (level 5) and d (level 6) are planttempered ware; parts f (level 3) and g (level 2) are painted
fine ware; part h (level 3) is plant-tempered ware.

examination of radiocarbon dates fromgöytepe and hacı elamxanlı tepeRadiocarbon dates from these two sites are listed intables 1 and 2. All dates except those from the 2012 season at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe (see table 2, nos. 35–41, 44,45) are previously unpublished. This data set comprises

2015]RADIOCARBON DATES FOR THE NEOLITHIC IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS

285

fig. 4. The plan and stratigraphy of Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe. The top right shows the plan of a snowman-shaped architecture fromlevel 3. The numbers in parentheses in the top right plan indicate loci defined during the excavations.

the largest collection of radiocarbon dates from asystematic sampling at stratified sites of this time period in the South Caucasus. They include three dates
from Göytepe (see table 1, nos. 18, 19, 21) collectedby the Azerbaijani-French mission in 2006 from theirsection exposure in an area now defined as squares
4A and 4B. We can assign the provenances of theseolder samples to our occupation levels.
All dates from both sites are based on charcoal remains. Although measured at different laboratories,
they are more or less consistent with their stratigraphic positions. To evaluate the chronological range ofeach level, we conducted a Bayesian analysis to compare dates from different levels using the sequenceand phase models of the OxCal calibration program© 2015 Archaeological Institute of America(version 4.2.4) and the atmospheric curve of IntCal
13 (online appx., fig. 1, table 1 on AJA Online).43
Table 3 presents the results of the analysis, which in
the first model uses all dates from Göytepe and Hacı
Elamxanlı Tepe, and in the second model excludes
the dates with agreement indices lower than 60 in
the first model. Although the second model uses
fewer dates (30 vs. 45 in the first model) and lacks
dates for some occupational levels, the results of thetwo models show similar overall temporal ranges

Bronk Ramsey 2009, 2013; Reimer et al. 2013. For the application of the Bayesian analysis to the Neolithic chronology,
see Campbell 2007.
43

286

Y. NISHIAKI ET AL.

[AJA 119table 1. Radiocarbon dates for the Neolithic layers of Göytepe.
No.

SampleLevel

Lab No.

1

GOY14, 1B-6

1

2

GOY14, 1B-3

3

GOY14, 1B-4

C Age (BP)Cal B.C.E. (2σ)

IAAA-141125

6385 ± 30

5486–5400 (32.9), 5391–5313 (62.5)

1

IAAA-141123

6480 ± 30

5486–5372

2

IAAA-141124

6565 ± 30

5607–5595 (3.4), 5561–5477 (91.6)

14

4

GOY14, 1A-1

3

IAAA-141120

6565 ± 30

5607–5594 (4.5), 5562–5477 (90.9)

5

GOY14, 1A-2

3

IAAA-141121

6530 ± 30

5558–5467 (94.7), 5399–5392 (0.7)

6

GOY14, 1A-3

3

IAAA-141122

6650 ± 30

5631–5519

7

GOY09, 1AII (79.1 cm bd)

3-1

TKa-14998

6460 ± 50

5508–5502 (0.8)

8

GOY09, 2AI (286.9 cm bd)

4

TKa-15000

6480 ± 45

5526–5356

9

GOY09, 2AII (226.1 cm bd)

4

TKa-14999

6480 ± 50

5528–5338

10

GOY08, 2B (225 cm bd)

4

TKa-14623

6500 ± 35

5528–5374

11

GOY08 (175 cm bd)

4

TKa-14622

6575 ± 35

5615–5585 (6.2), 5570–5482 (79.2)

12

GOY11, 4AI (oven)

5

IAAA-120064

6470 ± 30

5483–5371

13

GOY11, 3AII (oven)

6

IAAA-120063

6610 ± 30

5618–5508 (90.3), 5503–5490 (5.1)

14

GOY09, 4BII-21

7

TKa-15170

6410 ± 70

5490–5286 (91.0), 5273–5226 (4.4)

15

GOY09, 4BII-21

7

TKa-15169

6520 ± 70

5617–5357

16

GOY09, 4BII-51

8

TKa-15173

6450 ± 70

5543–5301

17

GOY11, 4BI-63

8

IAAA-120065

6560 ± 30

5608–5593 (5.1), 5562–5477 (90.3)

18

AF06-no. 4

8

UBA-7615

6574 ± 41

5616–5584 (13.9), 5572–5476 (81.5)

19

AF06-no. 1

8

UBA-7614

6575 ± 39

5615–5584 (13.5), 5571–5476 (81.9)

20

GOY09, 4BIIX-5

9

TKa-15168

6400 ± 50

5476–5306

21

AF06-no. 8

9

UBA-7616

6602 ± 39

5617–5484

22

GOY11, 4BI-84

9

IAAA-120066

6620 ± 30

5619–5508 (91.1), 5502–5491 (4.3)

23

GOY09, 4BIIX-53

10

TKa-15174

6530 ± 80

5623–5343

24

GOY09, 4BIIX-50

10

TKa-15172

6570 ± 70

5632–5462 (87.6), 5447–5379 (7.8)

25

GOY09, 4BIIX-51

10

TKa-15175

6580 ± 80

5644–5374

26

GOY11, 4BI-111

10

IAAA-120067

6610 ± 30

5617–5490

27

GOY09, 4BIIX-45

10

TKa-15171

6610 ± 50

5623–5483

28

GOY11, 4BI-116

11

IAAA-120068

6680 ± 30

5568–5546

29

GOY12, 4BIIX-113a

12

IAAA-120685

6590 ± 30

5612–5590 (11.5), 5565–5482 (83.9)

30

GOY11, 4BIIX-109

12

IAAA-120684

6620 ± 30

5621–5511

31

GOY10, 4BIIX-92

12

IAAA-120058

6730 ± 30

5714–5616 (92.4), 5584–5571 (3.0)

32

GOY12, 4BIIX-124

13

IAAA-120686

6800 ± 30

5731–5642

33

GOY13, 4BIIX-129a

14

IAAA-132140

6700 ± 30

5662–5605 (63.6), 5596–5560 (31.8)

34

GOY13, 4BIIX-129b

14

IAAA-132141

6690 ± 30

5659–5604 (60.4), 5596–5560 (35.0)

bd = below datumof occupations at both Göytepe and Hacı Elamxanlı
Tepe.
Radiocarbon dates from other recently excavatedsites are compiled in tables 4–6. We used these dates toestimate temporal ranges for occupations at the sites,
using the sequence and phase models of the OxCal
program according to the stratigraphic successions at© 2015 Archaeological Institute of America

the sites when such records are published (fig. 5).44
In the next section of this article, we discuss several
implications of these results regarding the cultural

44
The time range for Masis Blur in fig. 5 is overrepresented
because of the small sample size of radiocarbon dates.

2015]RADIOCARBON DATES FOR THE NEOLITHIC IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS

287

table 2. Radiocarbon dates for the Neolithic layers of Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.
No.

SampleLevel

Lab No.

35

HAJ13 M11-13

1

36

HAJ12 M10-54

37

HAJ12 M10-68

C Age (BP)Cal B.C.E. (2σ)

IAAA-132144

6890 ± 30

5837–5723

1

IAAA-120693

7000 ± 30

5985–5834 (92.6), 5826–5810 (2.8)

2

IAAA-120695

6930 ± 30

5882–5733

14

38

HAJ13 L11-22

2

IAAA-132145

7000 ± 30

5983–5939 (23.6), 5932–5807 (71.8)

39

HAJ13 L11-106

3a

IAAA-132146

6990 ± 30

5981–5944 (17.1), 5926–5792 (78.3)

40

HAJ12 M10-15

3a

IAAA-120696

7070 ± 30

6015–5893

41

HAJ12 M10-79

3a

IAAA-120697

7060 ± 30

6012–5886

42

HAJ14 L10-122

3b

IAAA-141126

7015 ± 30

5990–5837 (94.6), 5822–5815 (0.8)

43

HAJ14 L11-128

3b

IAAA-141127

7030 ± 30

5991–5843

44

HAJ12 M10-96H

4a

IAAA-120698

7080 ± 30

6015–5895

45

HAJ12 M10-96I

4a

IAAA-120699

6950 ± 40

5969–5955 (2.7), 5907–5739 (92.7)

46

HAJ14 M11-102

4b

IAAA-141127

7025 ± 30

5987–5846

table 3. Suggested date range for the occupation levels at Göytepe and Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.

Site
GöytepeHacı Elamxanlı Tepe

Date Range (B.C.E.)b

Date Range (B.C.E.)b

Level

No. of 14C Datesa

First Modelc

Second Modeld

1

2 (1)

5469–5459

5479–5473

2

1 (1)

5486–5479

5490–5485

3

3 (2)

5494–5490

5498–5494

4

4 (2)

5500–5497

5507–5502

5

1 (0)

5506–5503

–

6

1 (1)

5514–5510

5516–5511

7

2 (1)

5520–5517

5524–5520

8

4 (3)

5529–5524

5533–5528

9

3 (2)

5541–5534

5544–5539

10

5 (5)

5558–5548

5556–5550

11

1 (1)

5583–5571

5570–5563

12

3 (1)

5616–5595

5583–5576

13

1 (0)

5637–5629

–

14

2 (2)

5645–5640

5596–5590

1

2 (0)

5838–5813

–

2

2 (1)

5879–5856

5907–5890

3

5 (5)

5922–5903

5933–5921

4

3 (2)

5957–5938

5959–5944

aNumbers in parentheses are those with agreement indices above 60 in the first model.
Date ranges are given by the mean values for the start and end boundaries of each level.
c
The first model uses all 14C dates from Göytepe and Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe except for no. 7 in table 1.
d
The second model excludes 14C dates with agreement indices lower than 60 in the first model (see online appx., table 1 for theoriginal data).
b© 2015 Archaeological Institute of America

288

Y. NISHIAKI ET AL.

[AJA 119table 4. Radiocarbon dates from the Neolithic settlements of Aratashen, Aknashen, and Masis Blur in Armenia.
No.

Site

Context

Lab No.

1

Aratashenlevel IIa

Ly-2269

C Age (BP) Cal B.C.E. (2σ)

146660 ± 60

5663–5481

2

level IIa

Ly-2268

6820 ± 55

5811–5627

3

level IIb

AA-64175

6948 ± 73

5988–5713

4level IId

AA-64176

6821 ± 46

5791–5631

5level IId

AA-64178

6866 ± 49

5848–5658

6level IId

AA-64177

6913 ± 49

5905–5711

horizon III, trench A. UF6

LY-13664

6350 ± 70

5511–5040

7

Aknashen8

horizon III, trench 3. UF6aPoz-22746

6420 ± 40

5487–5299

9

horizon III, trench 6. UF6b

UGAMS 2820

6690 ± 50

5723–5486

10

horizon III, trench 4. UF6

Poz-22747

6790 ± 40

5796–5569

11horizon III, trench 1. UF6

Poz-22745

6910 ± 40

5975–5671

12

horizon IV, trench 4. UF8b

UGAMS 5804

6600 ± 25

5621–5481

13horizon IV, trench 6. UF7a

UGAMS 4082

6560 ± 30

5617–5471

14horizon IV, trench 3. UF7b

UGAMS 4080

6590 ± 30

5620–5477

15horizon IV, trench 3. UF7b

UGAMS 4079

6640 ± 30

5636–5486

16

horizon IV, trench A. UF8

UGAMS 2293

6550 ± 50

5629–5367

17horizon IV, trench 4. UF7a, str. 8

UGAMS 5803

6800 ± 30

5756–5624

18

horizon IV, trench 3. UF7a, F.7

UGAMS 2821

6740 ± 50

5766– 5515

19

horizon IV, trench 5. UF7a

UGAMS 4081

6720 ± 30

5721–5555

20horizon IV, trench A. UF7

AA-68559

6868 ± 40

5888–5641

21

horizon IV, trench 1. UF8

UGAMS 5802

6940 ± 30

5975–5725

22

horizon IV, trench 5. UF8a

UGAMS 5805

6970 ± 25

5981–5740

23

horizon V, trench A. UF10UGAMS 2292

6900 ± 50

5980–5644

24

horizon V, trench A. UF10/F.5

AA-68560

6930 ± 44

5984–5676

25

horizon V, trench A. UF11

AA-68561

7035 ± 69

6085–5717

26

horizon V, trench A. UF12

LY-13665

6920 ± 55

5986–5661

upper, MB-1 2012.L10/4.105.1034

UCIAMS-121528

6935 ± 25

5880–5740

28

lower, MB-2 2012.M9/1.212.2110

UCIAMS-121529

6995 ± 20

5925–5835

29

upper, MB-3 2012.M10/1.319.3085

UCIAMS-121530

6940 ± 25

5885–5745

30

MB-4 2012.M11/1.023.0259

UCIAMS-121531

6765 ± 25

5715–5630

27

Masis Blur

Note: For nos. 1–6, see Badalyan et al. 2007. For nos. 7–26, see Badalyan et al. 2010. For nos. 27–30, see Martirosyan-Olshansky
et al. 2013.

© 2015 Archaeological Institute of America

2015]RADIOCARBON DATES FOR THE NEOLITHIC IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS

289

table 5. Radiocarbon dates from the Neolithic settlement of Aruchlo in Georgia.
No.

Context

Lab No.

31

AR06D013-146

32
33

C Age (BP)Cal B.C.E. (2σ)

Bln-5950

6369 ± 46

5472–5229

AR06C021-151

Bln-5949

6451 ± 40

5482–5341

AR07K044-191

Hd-28505

6591 ± 22

5611–5485

14

34

AR07M013-181

Hd-28506

6650 ± 28

5629–5530

35

AR11AA007-364

MAMS-14735

6784 ± 26

5722–5638

36

AR11AA008-370

MAMS-14737

6788 ± 27

5724–5639

37

AR11AA009-386

MAMS-14738

6800 ± 26

5728–5644

38

AR11AA005-369

MAMS-14736

6814 ± 27

5736–5645

39

AR11U045-359/360

MAMS-14734

6844 ± 26

5775–5665

40

AR05A108a

Bln-5854

6850 ± 35

5835–5661

41

AR10B066-298

Hd-12879

6919 ± 30

5877–5731

Note: For all the dates in this table, see Hansen and Mirtskhulava 2012.

table 6. Radiocarbon dates from the Neolithic settlement of Hassansu in Azerbaijan.
No.

Context

Lab No.

42

Mound I (construction, 1.3 m bd)

TKa-15356

43

Mound I (pit, 2.3 m bd)

TKa-15355

6730 ± 50

5724–5603

44

Period II (1.4 m bd)

TKa-15357

6785 ± 50

5758–5617

C Age (BP)Cal B.C.E. (2σ)

6475 ± 45

5516–5341

14

bd = below datum
Note: For all the dates in this table, see Museibli 2011.

developments among the earliest agricultural communities in the region.

results and discussion: culturaldevelopments in the earliest agriculturalcommunities in the south caucasus
First, the cultural sequence at Göytepe is bracketedwithin a period across the early to middle sixth millennium, ca. 5650–5450 B.C.E.45 The beginning date may
have been slightly later than the oldest dates reported
from other Shomutepe-Shulaveri settlements locatedin the same valley—namely, Aruchlo (see table 5, nos.
39–41), Hassansu (see table 6, nos. 42–4), and Mentesh.46 Considering the small number of radiocarbon

The accumulation rate is thus one architectural levelapproximately every 15 years, slightly shorter than the rebuilding cycle of mudbrick architecture in the Neolithic andChalcolithic periods in the Middle East (Nishiaki 2001). Thisfinding should aid investigation of the settlement pattern of
the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture.
46
The radiocarbon dates for Mentesh are currently available only in a calibrated form. The oldest date (SacA26232/
45© 2015 Archaeological Institute of America

dates available from these sites, the large data set from
Göytepe is an important addition and suggests that the
Shomutepe-Shulaveri settlements in the Middle Kura
started in the first half of the sixth millennium B.C.E.
However, the end date of occupations at Göytepe, ca.
5450 B.C.E., is more or less comparable to that of othersites (see fig. 5),47 all of which point to a similar period:
the beginning of the second half of the sixth millennium B.C.E. Displacing the earlier view regarding thecontinuation of this culture to the fifth millennium
B.C.E.,48 this finding gives one possible date for interpreting the observed sudden abandonment of many
Neolithic settlements in the region without evidenceof occupations continuing into the Chalcolithic.49
Second, the dates demonstrate that the settlement ofHacı Elamxanlı Tepe predates the typical ShomutepeShulaveri settlement of Göytepe (see fig. 5; online

Gif-12713) corresponds to the end of the first quarter of theseventh millennium B.C.E. (Lyonnet and Guliyev 2012, 88).
47
Lyonnet and Guliyev 2012.
48
Connor and Sagona 2007.
49
Lyonnet 2007.

290

Y. NISHIAKI ET AL.

[AJA 119

fig. 5. Probability distributions of dates estimated with the sequence and phase models of OxCal 4.2.4 (Bronk Ramsey 2013),
employing the IntCal13 atmospheric curve (Reimer et al. 2013), according to radiocarbon dates from recently excavated Neolithic sites in the South Caucasus. Gray areas mark the range between the mean values estimated for the start and end of theoccupations at each site. As the number of dates decreases, the horizontal bars become longer.

appx., fig. 1). The Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe sequence
covers the first quarter of the sixth millennium, ca.
5950–5800 B.C.E. No comparably early occupational
traces have been identified at the other ShomutepeShulaveri settlements at Aruchlo, Hassansu, andMentesh. However, the lowest phase of Aruchlo andHassansu may have overlapped with the upper levelsof Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe. While detailed comparisons
can be made only after the full publication of these
two sites, the occurrence of the peculiar snowmanshaped building complexes at Aruchlo50 also suggests
its chronological proximity. Looking outside the Kura
Valley, the assemblages most comparable to those ofHacı Elamxanlı Tepe are found in the earlier stageof level II at Aratashen51 and in horizons IV and V of
Aknashen in the Araxes Valley.52 The architecture,imported painted pottery, and other material remains from these sites closely resemble one another,

Hansen and Mirtskhulava 2012, 61–2.
Badalyan et al. 2007.
52
Badalyan et al. 2010.
50
51© 2015 Archaeological Institute of America

although the available radiocarbon dates point tothe slightly earlier chronological position of Hacı
Elamxanlı Tepe.
The excavators of Aratashen and Aknashen associate the cultural assemblages of these and later horizons
collectively with the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture or
its local variant. Considering that the almost identicalentity occurs at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe in a context predating the surrounding Shomutepe-Shulaveri settlements, the entity may well have developed into a typical
Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture later in the Middle Kura.
Meanwhile, the developments likely involved significant socioeconomic changes. We have already notedchanges in the architectural plan, which most probably reflects transformations in social organization.
In terms of material culture, an attempt was made toevaluate the diachronic pattern in the popularity ofpottery, comparing the relative frequencies of sherds
with lithic artifacts by architectural level at these twosites. As shown in figure 6, the very rare occurrenceof sherds at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe undoubtedly marks
the beginning of pottery use in the Middle Kura. Aftera gap of a century and a half between the uppermost

2015]RADIOCARBON DATES FOR THE NEOLITHIC IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS

291

fig. 6. The ratio of pottery sherds to lithic artifacts from Göytepe and Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, by level.

level at Hacı Elamxanlı (HAJ L1) and the bottom level
at Göytepe (GOY L14), the proportion of sherds increased slightly in the lowest levels of Göytepe. Subsequently, it started to increase significantly from the
middle part of the sequence at Göytepe. The point
marking the increase of pottery is placed after level
10. The pottery analysis shows that this was a period inwhich the proportions of mineral- and plant-tempered
wares reversed—that is, the latter ware’s abundance
increased significantly. This change was then followedby remarkable technological and morphological diversification of plant-tempered wares (see fig. 3).53 The
overall trend shows that pottery came into prevalentuse in the South Caucasus three to four centuries after its initial introduction. The socioeconomic roles ofpottery also must have differed significantly between
stages of the Early Pottery Neolithic. This issue, as well
as changes in the architecture, forms the basis of animportant research agenda for the future that aims
to clarify cultural processes in the earliest agriculturalcommunities in this region.

The third implication of our radiocarbon chronology concerns the similarity in cultural developments
on both sides of the Lesser Caucasus in the Early Pottery Neolithic. The discovery of Hacı Elamxanlı Tepepushes the onset of the Pottery Neolithic on the northern side back to the same period as the onset on thesouthern side, the beginning of the sixth millennium
B.C.E. Considering that comparably early dates havealso been obtained from the Mil Plain sites in the Lower Kura Valley,54 the spread of Pottery Neolithic agricultural communities at this time seems to have been
a common phenomenon across the South Caucasus.
A straightforward interpretation of this phenomenon
would relate it to the climatic amelioration after an
episode of climatic deterioration known as the 8.2 ka
event.55 Many coincident cultural changes across theMiddle East have been interpreted as having been
triggered by this arid, cold period that lasted a few
centuries and a subsequent, rapid recovery at the endof the seventh millennium B.C.E.,56 which included

Helwing and Aliyev 2012.
Gronenborn 2009; Joannin et al. 2014.
56
See, e.g., Nishiaki 2010; van der Plicht et al. 2011.
54
55

53

Guliyev and Nishiaki 2012.

© 2015 Archaeological Institute of America

292

Y. NISHIAKI ET AL.

the dispersal of Neolithic economies and the reorganization of extant societies. The radiocarbon dates
for Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe belong to the earliest stageof the climatic amelioration, suggesting that societies on the northern side of the Lesser Caucasus werealso encompassed in the regional adaptive processes.
More specifically, the known earliest phase at Hacı
Elamxanlı Tepe is contemporaneous with the ProtoHalaf or the Transitional phase defined at Tell Sabi
Abyad and Tell Halula57 in Upper Mesopotamia. In
this regional context, a distinct cultural trait of Hacı
Elamxanlı Tepe is the near absence of pottery; however, some similarities to the Proto-Halaf culture are also
detectable, including the appearance of painted fineware and circular buildings of the snowman-shaped
plan.58 Closer examinations of this issue are ongoing
and will be presented in another paper.
The similarities between the northern and southernfoothills of the Lesser Caucasus go beyond the timingof the introduction of an agricultural socioeconomic
structure. They can be seen in subsequent culturaldevelopments as well, which appear to be unrelated
to the climatic changes. The developmental stages
noted at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe and Göytepe were apparently shared by communities to the south, in the
Araxes Valley. “A time of acceleration in the development of the site” has been pointed out in the Neolithic
sequence of Aratashen, in the later stage of its level
II.59 Similarly, the Neolithic horizons at Aknashen
have been grouped into two stages (horizons V–IV
and III–II), between which significant developments
in material and architectural remains are recognized.60
Pottery production followed comparable diachronic
developments. Pottery and diversifications of planttempered wares rapidly increased from levels IIc to
IIb at Aratashen and horizons IV to III at Aknashen.
All these changes occurred in the mid sixth millennium B.C.E. The close synchronicity of cultural developments in the Middle Kura and Araxes Valleys may
well reflect substantial social interactions between
these two regions. The identified cultural developments also strongly indicate that characteristics of the
Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture were established gradually, as the result of local cultural evolution.
Now that the beginning of the Pottery Neolithic
culture is clearly defined by abundant radiocarbon
dates and cultural/subsistence records from Hacı
Elamxanlı Tepe, Aknashen V–IV, and Aratashen IId–c,
we have a new picture of the establishment of theCampbell 2007; Molist et al. 2013.
Akkermans and Schwartz 2003, 104–10; Molist et al. 2013.
59
Badalyan et al. 2007, 60.
60
Badalyan et al. 2010, 204.
57
58

© 2015 Archaeological Institute of America[AJA 119

Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture, one that contributes todiscussions about the aceramic/Early Neolithic stage
in the South Caucasus. The extremely rare use ofpottery among these early farming communities suggests that they likely originated from the aceramic
communities rather than the fully developed Pottery
Neolithic ones migrating across the region. If future
investigations provide more substantial records of theaceramic Neolithic phase, it would be worth examining whether this stage represents a transition from thelocal Early Holocene cultures such as those of Kmlo-2
or Kotias Klde layer A2, or whether it is dominated byallochthonous cultural/economic elements, possibly
from the Middle East. This issue can be examinedthrough multiple lines of evidence, including pottery and lithic assemblages, architecture, and domesticated plants and animals. Importantly, the regional
comparison of these elements needs to be based on an
accurate and precise chronological framework, which
this study has aimed to develop.

conclusion
Radiocarbon dates from Neolithic sites in Azerbaijan are still rare compared with the rapidly increasing data sets from sites in neighboring countries of
the South Caucasus (see tables 4–6). The dates from
Göytepe and Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe reported here areimportant additions to the corpus of new data from
the Middle Kura Valley. It is hoped that the newly
refined chronological framework provided by dates
from Göytepe and Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe will serve
as a reference point for identifying and interpreting
cultural/socioeconomic developments in the earliest
Neolithic societies in the South Caucasus.
The refined framework demonstrates the almost
simultaneous spread of fully agricultural communities on both sides of the South Caucasus at the beginning of the sixth millennium B.C.E. The recovery ofimported painted sherds at the earliest Pottery Neolithic sites suggests that the introduction of a farming
socioeconomic structure was accomplished throughclose links with regions farther south in the Middle
East. In addition, the new data from the sequential
occupations from Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe to Göytepe
provide chronologically and depositionally wellseparated archaeological assemblages that have enabled
us to clarify the timing and nature of cultural andsocioeconomic developments in this period. Based on
this refined chronological framework, and also given
the extremely rare use of pottery at the beginning of
this cultural stage, we propose that the cultural entityof the first agricultural societies in the region—that is,
the Shomutepe-Shulaveri—did not appear “as a package” but was established in the process of local cultural
evolution that most likely involved an aceramic stage.

2015]RADIOCARBON DATES FOR THE NEOLITHIC IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS

Implications of this cultural development will be better interpreted when more archaeological data on thepreceding aceramic communities become available.

yoshihiro nishiaki
the university museum
the university of tokyo
tokyo 113-0033
japan
nishiaki@um.u-tokyo.ac.jp
farhad guliyev
institute of archaeology and ethnology
national academy of sciences ofazerbaijan
baku az-1143
azerbaijan
fred_amea@mail.ru
seiji kadowaki
nagoya university museum
nagoya university
nagoya 464-8601
japan
kadowaki@num.nagoya-u.ac.jp

Works Cited
Abibullayev, A.O. 1959. Археологические Pаскопки вКюльтепе/Archaeological Excavations at Kültepe. Baku:
Elm.
Akkermans, P., and G. Schwartz. 2003. The Archaeology of
Syria: From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (ca. 16,000–300 BC). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arimatsu, Y. 2014. “The Neolithic Pottery at Göytepe.”
Unpublished manuscript. Tokyo: University Museum,
University of Tokyo.
Arimura, M. 2014. “南コーカサス後期旧石器時代の様相—グルジア、パラヴァニ遺跡の発掘—/Upper Palaeolithic in the Southern Caucasus: Excavations at Paravani, Georgia.” In 日本西アジア考古学会第19回総会・
大会要旨集/Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of theJapanese Society for West Asian Archaeology, 56–7. Tsukuba:
Japanese Society for West Asian Archaeology.
Arimura, M., C. Chataigner, and B. Gasparyan. 2009.
“Kmlo 2: An Early Holocene Site in Armenia.” Neo-Lithics
2/09:17–19.
Arimura, M., R. Badalyan, B. Gasparyan, and C. Chataigner. 2010. “Current Neolithic Research in Armenia.” NeoLithics 1/10:77–85.
Badalyan, R., P. Lombard, P. Avetisyan, C. Chataigner, J.
Chabot, E. Vila, R. Hovsepyan, G. Willcox, and H. Pessin.
2007. “New Data on the Late Prehistory of the Southern Caucasus: The Excavations at Aratashen (Armenia).
Preliminary Report.” In Les cultures du Caucase, VIe–IIIemillénaires avant notre ère: Leurs relations avec le ProcheOrient, edited by B. Lyonnet, 37–61. Paris: CNRS Éditions.
Badalyan, R., A.A. Harutyunyan, C. Chataigner, F. Le Mort,© 2015 Archaeological Institute of America

293

J. Chabot, J.E. Brochier, A. Balasescu, V. Radu, and R.
Hovsepyan. 2010. “The Settlement of Aknashen-Khatunarkh, a Neolithic Site in the Ararat Plain (Armenia):
Excavation Results 2004–2009.” TÜBA-AR 13:185–218.
Bellwood, P. 2005. First Farmers: The Origins of Agricultural
Societies. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. “Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon
Dates.” Radiocarbon 51(1):337–60.
———. 2013. OxCal Online Radiocarbon Calibration. Version 4.2. Oxford: Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, University of Oxford. http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.
php?File=oxcal.html.
Campbell, S. 2007. “Rethinking Halaf Chronologies.”
Paléorient 33(1):103–36.
Chataigner, C. 1995. La Transcaucasie au Néolithique et au
Chalcolithique. BAR-IS 624. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.
Chataigner, C. et al. 2012. “From the Late Upper Paleolithic
to the Neolithic in Northwestern Armenia: Preliminary
Results.” In The Archaeology of Armenia in a Regional Context: Results and Perspectives, edited by P. Avetisyan, 37–43.
Yerevan: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, National Academy of Sciences of Armenia.
Connor, S., and A. Sagona. 2007. “Environment and Society in the Late Prehistory of Southern Georgia andCaucasus.” In Les Cultures du Caucase, VIe–IIIe millénaires
avant notre ère: Leurs relations avec le Proche-Orient, edited
by B. Lyonnet, 21–36. Paris: CNRS Éditions.
Goring-Morris, N., and A. Belfer-Cohen. 2008. “A Roofover One’s Head: Developments in Near Eastern Residential Architecture Across the Epipalaeolithic-Neolithic
Transition.” In The Neolithic Demographic Transition and
Its Consequences, edited by J.-P. Bocquet-Appel and O.
Bar-Yosef, 239–86. Dordrecht: Springer.
Gronenborn, D. 2009. “Climate Fluctuations and Trajectories to Complexity in the Neolithic: Towards a Theory.”
Documenta Praehistorica 36:97–110.
Guliyev, F., and Y. Nishiaki. 2012. “Excavations at the Neolithic Settlement of Göytepe, the Middle Kura Valley,
Azerbaijan, 2008–2009.” In Proceedings of the 7th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East: 12
April–16 April 2010, the British Museum and UCL, London.
Vol. 3, Fieldwork and Recent Research, edited by R. Matthews
and J. Curtis, 71–84. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
Guliyev, F., Y. Nishiaki, F. Huseinov, S. Kadowaki, K. Shimogama, C. Akashi, S. Kume, and O. Zamanov. 2011.
“Göythph Neolit Dövrü Yaşayış Yerindh Arxeoloji
Qazıntılar/Archaeological Excavations of a Neolithic Site of Göytepe.” Az arbaycanda Arxeoloji Tadqiqatlar/
Archaeological Research in Azerbaijan (2010):52–8.
Hamon, C. 2008. “From Neolithic to Chalcolithic in theSouthern Caucasus: Economy and Macrolithic Implements from Shulaveri-Shomu Sites of Kwemo-Kartli(Georgia).” Paléorient 34(2):85–135.
Hansen, S., and G. Mirtskhulava. 2012. “The Neolithic
Settlement of Aruchlo: Report on the Excavations in
2009–2011.” Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und
Turan 44:58–86.
Hansen, S., G. Mirtskhulava, K. Bastert-Lamprichs, N. Benecke, I. Gatsov, and P. Nedelcheva. 2006. “Aruchlo
2005–2006: Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in einem
neolithischen Siedlungshügel.” Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 38:1–34.
Hansen, S., G. Mirtskhulava, and K. Bastert-Lamprichs.
2007. “Aruchlo: A Neolithics Settlement Mound in the
Caucasus.” Neo-Lithics 1/07:13–19.

294 Y. NISHIAKI ET AL., RADIOCARBON DATES FOR THE NEOLITHIC IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS
Helwing, B., and T. Aliyev. 2012. “Field Work in the Mil
Plain: The 2010–2011 Expedition.” Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 44:4–17.
Hovsepyan, R., and G. Willcox. 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(Suppl. 1):S63–71.
Joannin, S., A.A. Ali, V. Ollivier, P. Roiron, O. Peyron, S.
Chevaux, S. Nahapetyan, P. Tozalakyan, A. Karakhanyan, and C. Chataigner. 2014. “Vegetation, Fire and Climate History of the Lesser Caucasus: A New Holocene
Record from Zarishat fen (Armenia).” Journal of Quaternary Science 29(1):70–82.
Kadowaki, S., L. Maher, M. Portillo, R.M. Albert, C. Akashi,
F. Guliyev, and Y. Nishiaki. 2015. “Geoarchaeological and Palaeobotanical Evidence for Prehistoric Cereal Storage in the Southern Caucasus: The Neolithic
Settlement of Göytepe (Mid 8th Millennium BP).” JAS
53:408–25.
Kiguradze, T. 1986. Neolithische Siedlungen von Kvemo-Kartli,
Georgien. Materialien zur allgemeinen und vergleichenden Archäologie 29. Munich: C.H. Beck.
Kiguradze, K., and M. Menabde. 2004. “The Neolithic ofGeorgia.” In A View from the Highlands: ArchaeologicalStudies in Honour of Charles Burney, edited by A. Sagona,
345–98. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Suppl. 12. Leuven: Peeters.
Korobkova, G.F. 1996. “The Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Southern Caucasus.” In Neolithic Chipped
Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, and Their Contemporaries in Adjacent Regions: Proceedings of the Second Workshop
on PPN Chipped Lithic Industries, Institute of Archaeology,
Warsaw University, 3rd–7th April 1995, edited by S.K. Kozlowski and H.G.K. Gebel, 57–89. Studies in Early Near
Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 3.
Berlin: Ex Oriente.
Kozlowski, S.K. 1996. “The Trialetian ‘Mesolithic’ Industryof the Caucasus, Transcaucasia, Western Anatolia, andthe Iranian Plateau.” In Neolithic Chipped Stone Industriesof the Fertile Crescent, and Their Contemporaries in AdjacentRegions: Proceedings of the Second Workshop on PPN Chipped
Lithic Industries, Institute of Archaeology, Warsaw University,
3rd–7th April 1995, edited by S.K. Kozlowski and H.G.K.
Gebel, 161–70. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production,
Subsistence, and Environment 3. Berlin: Ex Oriente.
Lyonnet, B. 2007. Introduction to Les Cultures du Caucase,
VIe–IIIe millénaires avant notre ère: Leurs relations avec leProche-Orient, edited by B. Lyonnet, 11–19. Paris: CNRS
Éditions.
Lyonnet, B., and F. Guliyev. 2010. “Recent Discoveries on
the Neolithic and Chalcolithic of Western Azerbaijan.”TÜBA-AR 13:219–28.
———. 2012. “Part III: Mentesh Tepe.” Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 44:86–121.
Martirosyan-Olshansky, K., G.E. Areshian, P.S. Avestiyan,
and A. Hayrapetyan. 2013. “Masis Blur: A Late Neolithic Settlement in the Plain of Ararat, Armenia.” Backdirt
2013:142–46.
Meshveliani, T. 2013. “On Neolithic Origins in Western© 2015 Archaeological Institute of America

Georgia.” Archaeology, Ethnology, and Anthropology of Eurasia 41(2):61–72.
Meshveliani, T., G. Bar-Oz, O. Bar-Yosef, A. BelferCohen, E. Boaretto, N. Jakeli, I. Koridze, and Z. Matskevich. 2007. “Mesolithic Hunters at Kotias Klde, Western
Georgia: Preliminary Results.” Paléorient 33(2):47–58.
Molist, M. et al. 2013. “Tell Halula (Euphrates Valley, Syria): New Data from the Late Neolithic Settlement.” InInterpreting the Late Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia, edited by O.P. Nieuwenhuyse, R. Bernbeck, P.M.M.G. Akkermans, and J. Rogasch, 443–53. Turnhout: Brepols.
Munchaev, R.M. 1982. “Энеолит Кавказа/Eneolithic Caucasus.” In Энеолит СССР, Археология СССР/Eneolithic SSSR, Archaeology of SSSR, edited by V.M. Masson and N. Merpert, 100–64. Moscow: Nauk.
Museibli, N. 2011. “Settlements of the Shomutepe Culture
in Northwestern Azerbaijan.” Paper read at the international conference “New Research on the Neolithic in
the Circumcaspian Regions,” 27–30 September, Tbilisi.
Narimanov, I. 1987. Культура древнейшего земледельческоскотоводческого населения Азербайджана/The Cultureof the Most Ancient Farming and Stock-Breeding Populationof Azerbaijan. Baku: Elm.
Nebieridze, L. 1978. Darkvetis mravalp‘eniani exi/The Darkveti Multilayer Shelter. Tbilisi: Metsniereba.
Nishiaki, Y. 2001. “Radiocarbon Dates and the Absolute
Chronology of Tell Kosak Shamali.” In Tell Kosak Shamali: The Archaeological Investigations on the Upper Euphrates, Syria, edited by Y. Nishiaki and T. Matsutani. Vol. 1,
153–57. University Museum, University of Tokyo Monograph 1. Oxford: Oxbow.
———. 2010. “A Radiocarbon Chronology of the Neolithic Settlement of Tall-i Mushki, Marv Dasht Plain, Fars,
Iran.” Iran 48:1–10.
Nishiaki, Y., F. Guliyev, S. Kadowaki, Y. Arimatsu, Y. Hayakawa, K. Shimogama, T. Miki, C. Akashi, S. Arai, and
S. Salimbeyov. Forthcoming. “Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe: Excavations of the Earliest Pottery Neolithic Occupations
on the Middle Kura, Azerbaijan, 2012.” Archäologische
Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 45.
Reimer, P.J. et al. 2013. “IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves 0–50,000 Years Cal BP.”
Radiocarbon 55(4):1869–87.
van der Plicht, J., P.M.M.G. Akkermans, O. Nieuwenhuyse,
A. Kaneda, and A. Russell. 2011. “Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria:
Radiocarbon Chronology, Cultural Change, and the 8.2
Ka Event.” Radiocarbon 53(2):229–43.
Willcox, G. 2013. “The Roots of Cultivation in Southwestern Asia.” Science 341:39–40.
Zeder, M. 2008. “Domestication and Early Agriculturein the Mediterranean Basin: Origins, Diffusion, andImpact.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
105(33):11597–604.
———. 2011. “The Origins of Agriculture in the Near
East.” CurrAnthr 52(Suppl. 4):S221–35.
Zohary, D., M. Hopf, and E. Weiss. 2012. Domestication of
Plants in the Old World: The Origin and Spread of Domesticated Plants in Southwest Asia, Europe, and the Mediterranean Basin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.