Investigating Cultural and Socioeconomic
Change at the Beginning of the Pottery
Neolithic in the Southern Caucasus:
The 2013 Excavations atHacı Elamxanlı Tepe, Azerbaijan
Yoshihiro Nishiaki, Farhad Guliyev, Seiji Kadowaki, Valeh Alakbarov,
Takehiro Miki, Shahin Salimbayov, Chie Akashi, and Saiji Arai
Recent research on the Neolithic period of the southern Caucasus situates the emergence ofan established food-producing economy at the beginning of the sixth millennium b.c. This article
reports on the 2013 season of excavations at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, western Azerbaijan, currently
one of the oldest sites providing evidence of early agriculture, which represents the earliest stageof the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture. Excavations yielded a rich archaeological record that confirmed the intensive exploitation of domesticated cereals and animals over a period ranging fromca. 5950 to 5800 cal b.c. Excavated artifact assemblages have a distinct character, differing fromthose of later settlements, indicating rapid cultural changes in the first half of the sixth millennium b.c. The assemblages also comprised a small number of elements reminiscent of the Pottery
Neolithic traditions from the eastern wing of the Fertile Crescent, suggesting cultural contacts during the earliest stages in the development of an agricultural economy in the southern Caucasus.
Keywords: Neolithic; southern Caucasus; Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture; early food-producing
socioeconomy; northern MesopotamiaT

he Neolithic of the southern Caucasus, encompassing the modern territories of Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Armenia, has been relatively
poorly studied in comparison with the advanced stateof research in neighboring regions in the Middle East
(Munchaev 1982; Narimanov 1987; Chataigner 1995;
Chataigner et al. 2012; Lyonnet et al. 2012). However,important new data were provided in the last decade by
Yoshihiro Nishiaki, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan,
nishiaki@um.u-tokyo.ac.jp

excavations at Aratashen and Aknashen in the Araxes
Valley (Badalyan et al. 2007; 2010), Aruchlo (Hansen,
Mirtskhulava, and Bastert-Lamprichs 2007; Hansen
and Mirtskhulava 2012), Mentesh (Lyonnet and Guliyev
2012), and Göytepe (Guliyev and Nishiaki 2012; 2014),
along the Middle Kura Valley, and Kamiltepe on its lower
reaches (Helwing and Aliyev 2012). These international
collaborative research projects, which introduced modern excavation techniques and research strategies, havedemonstrated that the Shomutepe-Shulaveri cultureof the Pottery Neolithic marks the earliest agricultural
economy of this region. They also date its emergence toFarhad Guliyev, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology,
Baku, Azerbaijan, fred_amea@mail.ru
Seiji Kadowaki, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan,
kadowaki@num.nagoya-u.ac.jp

Shahin Salimbayov, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology,
Baku, Azerbaijan, salimbeyov@mail.ru

Valeh Alakbarov, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology,
Baku, Azerbaijan, valeh_elekberli@mail.ru

Chie Akashi, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan,
cats@moegi.waseda.jp

Takehiro Miki, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan,
lambtake@yahoo.co.jp

Saiji Arai, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan,
araisj@outlook.com© 2015 American Schools of Oriental Research. BASOR 374 (2015): 1–28.

This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=bullamerschoorie.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.

2

NISHIAKI ET AL.

BASOR 374

Fig. 1. Location of Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, Middle Kura Valley, Azerbaijan, and other Neolithic sites referred to in the article. (Map by T. Miki)the first half of the sixth millennium b.c. (Nishiaki, Guliyev, and Kadowaki 2015).
Drawing on the foundations established by a newly constructed chronological framework, current research interests focus on investigating the origin and development of
Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture. This research would greatly
benefit from efforts to search for earlier “aceramic Neolithic” settlements (Kiguradze 1986; Arimura et al. 2010;
Meshveliani 2013). At the same time, the project seeks to
document the diachronic developments of this culture anddetermine its earliest stage. The latter aims have been a major research target of a joint Azerbaijan-Japanese mission,and its latest results are presented in this article.
The mission has been conducting a series of field investigations in the Middle Kura Valley, western Azerbaijan, since 2008 (Guliyev and Nishiaki 2012; 2014).
While the major focus has been on excavating the large
Shomutepe-Shulaveri settlement of Göytepe, dated fromca. 5650 to 5450 cal b.c. (Nishiaki, Guliyev, and Kado­

waki 2015), the mission also started excavating a neighboring Neolithic site, Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, in 2012
(Fig. 1). Preliminary excavations in 2012, along withextensive radiocarbon dating, indicated earlier occupational horizons during ca. 5950–5800 cal b.c. (Nishiaki
et al. in press). This is, at present, one of the oldest series of dates for the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture. It thus
provided a valuable opportunity to define the nature ofassemblages of the earliest stage of this culture and to
explore its later development through comparisons withrecords from Göytepe. In addition, the 2012 excavation
yielded two painted ceramics resembling the northern
Mesopotamian tradition, noted for the first time on thenorthern side of the Lesser Caucasus Mountains. Thesefinds reignite old issues related to a possible cultural linkwith Pottery Neolithic communities of the Middle East
(Abibullayev 1959; Munchaev 1982).
The second season of excavations at Hacı Elamxanlı
Tepe was from July 22 to August 17, 2013. This involved

This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=bullamerschoorie.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.

2015

THE 2013 EXCAVATIONS AT HACI ELAMXANLI TEPE, AZERBAIJAN

3

Fig. 2. Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, from the northwest. (Photo by Y. Nishiaki)

the enlargement of the excavation trench from a squareof 5 × 5 m, initiated in 2012, to a larger one of 10 × 10 m.
In this article, major findings on the architecture, culturalassemblages, and subsistence practices are described. Wethen discuss implications for the origin and developmentof the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture.

Excavations of the 2013 Season
Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe is a small Neolithic mound situated about 8 km east of Tovuz, western Azerbaijan, at thealtitude of ca. 405 m (Fig. 1). It is located in the contact
area of two main alluvial fans produced by the Zayam
River to the east and the Asrik River to the west, bothof which are right-bank tributaries of the Kura River,running northward from the Lesser Caucasus Mountains. The surrounding region, called the Qazakh-Ganja
Plain, receives annual precipitation of 300–400 mm, allowing for farming that is supported by the great availability of ground and river water on the alluvial fans. A
dozen Neolithic sites have been identified in this plain,including the major Shomutepe-Shulaveri settlement of
Göytepe, situated about 1.5 km to the southeast (Narimanov 1987; Guliyev and Nishiaki 2012; 2014).

The mound of Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe occupies an areaof approximately 60 × 80 m, with a height of 1.5 m fromthe surrounding field (Fig. 2). It was discovered during a reconnaissance survey in 2011. The very rare occurrences of potsherds and the abundance of Neolithic
flaked stone artifacts on the surface strongly suggested
its earlier chronological position, and this estimate wastested in the 2012 season (Nishiaki et al. in press). The
preliminary excavation resulted in defining four Neolithic architectural levels in a 5 × 5 m area (Square M10).
Although virgin soil was not reached, the lowest level(Level 4) seemed to have been close to the natural surface. This first season of excavation confirmed the general characteristic of the artifact assemblages suggested
from the survey. Further, as mentioned earlier, the radiocarbon dates verified our chronological estimate for thismound as an earlier Neolithic settlement than Göytepe.
The second season of excavation had two main
aims. The first was to verify our initial characterizationof archaeological levels (Levels 1–4) excavated in the2012 season (Nishiaki et al. in press). The second was
to extend the horizontal exposure of Neolithic architectural remains in order to document their spatial extent
and organization. These aims are related, as we defineThis journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=bullamerschoorie.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.

4

NISHIAKI ET AL.

BASOR 374of the excavation squares. For example, “L10-30” indicatesfeature or deposit no. 30 in Square L10.
Stratigraphy and Architecture

Fig. 3. The three excavation squares at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe (L10, L11,
and M11) excavated in the 2013 season. The square marked in black(M10) was excavated in the 2012 season. (Drawing by Y. Hayakawa)a­rchaeological levels on the basis of the stratigraphic
relationships between architectural remains. Increasing
the sample size of architectural features and their stratigraphic relationships would aid in refining our definitionof archaeological levels. The latter constitute the basis
for the analyses of occupational history and diachronicchanges in material culture, subsistence practices, andsettlement organization at this site.
We excavated three 5 × 5 m squares at L10, L11, andM11 adjacent to Square M10 (Fig. 3). This led to the exposure of archaeological deposits and architectural features over a 10 × 10 m square area. We employed thesame excavation methods utilized during the previous
season, except for the fact that we did not sieve deposits from Squares L10, L11, and M11 in order to hasten
the wider exposure of architectural remains, subject to a
constrained field schedule. However, we continued sieving in Square M10, as in the last season, for a thoroughsampling of artifacts and ecofacts.
As a result of the 2013 season, our initial definition ofarchitectural levels in Square M10 was found to be applicable to the archaeological deposits and architecture in
the adjacent squares of L10, L11, and M11. Here, we describe newly uncovered architectural features and notableartifacts in the latter squares. When we refer to specific architectural features or deposits, we identify them by theircontext numbers, which are consecutive numbers in each

Neolithic Level 1 (Fig. 4). This architectural level includes occupational surfaces resulting from the reoccupation of buildings that were originally constructed in
the underlying Level 2. In Square L11, a curvilinear mud
wall (L11-15) forms a round building of ca. 5 m in diameter. This round structure appears to have an entrance at
its western side, from which another wall (L11-32) extends at least 3 m to the northeast, forming an interior
partition. An occupational floor in this room was composed of ashy sediments and was associated with flaked
and ground-stone artifacts and animal bones, including
a single horn core.
In an outdoor space immediately to the north of theround structure, we discovered a pit oven (L11-60) of ca.
1 m in diameter and 30 cm in depth. The interior surface of the pit was coated with burned clay arising fromuse of the oven. Although the pit was filled with rocks,
they were not burned, indicating that they may not have
served in the original use of this feature.
Another notable find in this area was a large singleplatform obsidian core (L11-47), with a series of regularblade scars and the potential for further blade detachment. The core was lying flat on its flaked face, withinyellowish brown sediments with little ash or refuse.
The round structure in Square L11 was associated on
its western side with another smaller round building (ca.
2 m in diameter) in Square L10. A curvilinear wall of thelatter (L10-14) abuts the wall of the former larger structure, and the two round rooms are connected via a passage. The floor of the smaller round house also yieldedlithics and animal bones. In Square L10, we uncovereda small round structure (L10-20: ca. 1.5 m in diameter),which appears to have been used for storage rather thanas a dwelling. The structure contained refuse, including
conjoinable fragments of a stone mortar (Fig. 5) as wellas animal bones. These items probably represent secondary use of this structure as a refuse receptacle, as they
were deposited in the middle of the fill. The base of thefill was ashy and contained little refuse.
To the north of these structures in Square L10 was
an open space with various ground-stone artifacts, ash
deposits (L10-11), and a small pit oven with burned cobbles (L10-19). This outdoor space continues to the northin Square M10, where ashy sediments decrease inside asemicircular structure (M10-9).
Neolithic Level 2 (Fig. 6). This architectural level ismarked by the construction of several mud-brick struc-

This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=bullamerschoorie.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.

2015

THE 2013 EXCAVATIONS AT HACI ELAMXANLI TEPE, AZERBAIJAN

5

Fig. 4. Architectural plan of Level 1 at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, showing a “snowman-shaped” building and other important features with their context numbers. (Drawing by T. Miki and S. Kadowaki)tures that continued to be used or reused in Level 1. As
such, architectural plans between Levels 1 and 2 aresimilar. Buildings in these levels in Squares L10 and L11
characteristically include two circular buildings attachedto each other, forming a figure-eight called a “snowmanshaped” building (Fig. 7). A curvilinear wall of thesmaller round structure (L10-14) abuts the western sideof the larger round structure (L10/11-15). The two rooms
appear to be connected via a passage. An internal area
near the entrance of the larger room is partitioned by awall (L11-32). In addition, there is an even smaller roundstructure (L10-20) to the west of the house. This possible

This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=bullamerschoorie.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.

6

NISHIAKI ET AL.

BASOR 374

Fig. 5. Conjoinable stone mortar fragments recovered from the middle part of the fill inside the round structure(L10-20) in Square L10, Level 1, from the south. (Photo by S. Kadowaki)

storage feature is also likely to have been used throughLevels 1 and 2. These observations are consistent with
our previous finds in Square M10, where a semicircular
structure (M10-9) was built and originally inhabited in
Level 2 and then reoccupied in Level 1. Thus, we suggestthat the occupations of Levels 1 and 2 in this part of thesite were more or less continuous, or separated only by abrief temporal hiatus.
Despite the overall similarity in architectural layouts
between Levels 1 and 2, the latter phase is associated witha greater number of features, particularly clay-lined bins
and indoor hearths. For example, the “snowman-shaped”
house in Squares L10 and L11 has four clay-lined bins
(L10-33, L11-30, 33, and 35) in Level 2 that appear tohave been abandoned and buried in Level 1. In addition,a pit oven (L11-22) occurs in the larger room of thishouse. Although the Level 1 floor of the building is composed of ashy sediments, we did not detect any in situ
firing feature. This pattern is consistent with that noted in
Square M10, where our previous excavations uncovereda hearth (M10-17) inside a semicircular structure (M109) in Level 2 but not in Level 1.
Levels 1 and 2 also differ from each other in the distributional pattern of refuse. Reusable artifacts, such as
ground stones and obsidian blade cores, tend to occur inside the houses in Level 2, while in Level 1 they are largely
distributed in outdoor spaces. For example, in Level 1
we recovered a number of complete ground stones andan obsidian blade core in the northern outdoor space in

Squares L10 and L11, where two pit ovens (L10-19 andL11-60) were also found. This was also associated witha cluster of flaked stone artifacts, including blades and acore, in the southern part of Square M10 (M10-43). Thissuggests that in Level 1 major activity areas in this partof the site were located outside of buildings. In Level 2,on the other hand, the larger room of the “snowmanshaped” house contained two obsidian blade cores (L1149) (Fig. 8), a cluster of flaked flint artifacts (L10/11-50),
and many ground-stone tools. In Level 2, an outdoor area
north of this house appears to have been used mainly fordiscarding domestic refuse, including ash, animal bones,
and broken tools.
Neolithic Level 3 (Fig. 9). The architectural plan of
this phase clearly differs from those of Levels 1 and 2,
suggesting an occupational hiatus between Levels 3
and 2. This accords with our previous observations ofchanges in architecture in Square M10, as indicated in
the stratigraphy, as well as with a small hiatus suggested
by radiocarbon dates between Levels 1–2 and Levels 3–4(Nishiaki et al. in press). However, in the 2013 season, we
detected a pattern of continuous architectural organization over this occupational hiatus between Levels 3 and 2.
For example, Level 3 revealed a “snowman-shaped” houseplan similar to that noted in Levels 1–2 (Fig. 10). The“snowman-shaped” house in Level 3 is also composed of
two round structures, measuring ca. 5 m and ca. 2 m indiameter, respectively. The wall of the smaller structures

This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=bullamerschoorie.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.

2015

THE 2013 EXCAVATIONS AT HACI ELAMXANLI TEPE, AZERBAIJAN

7

Fig. 6. Architectural plan of Level 2 at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, showing major features with their context numbers. (Drawing by T. Miki and­S. Kadowaki)

abuts the larger one. In addition, the “snowman-shaped”
houses in Levels 3 and 2 are commonly associated withsmaller round structures (L10-20 in Level 2, and L10-63
and 78 in Level 3). These are possibly storage features andcontained caches of ground-stone artifacts.
In Level 3, we also uncovered another round structure (M11-20) that stretches over Squares M11 and L11(Fig. 11). Although it has not been fully excavated, itmeasures at least 4 m in diameter. If this is also a part of
the “snowman-shaped” house, it would correspond to alarger round room. The interior of this structure has aclay-lined bin (M11-17) and a mud-walled feature filledwith ashy sediments (M11-23/24).
The outdoor space of Level 3 had a dense concentration of domestic architectural features (i.e., hearths andbins) and refuse. Such areas occur both on the westernThis journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=bullamerschoorie.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.

8

NISHIAKI ET AL.

BASOR 374

Fig. 7. Two circular structures, forming a “snowman-shaped” plan, and other architectural features in the Neolithic Level 2, Squares
L10 and L11, from the south. Scale is 1 m. (Photo by S. Kadowaki)

Fig. 8. Two large obsidian blade cores placed near the wall inside thelarge round structure (L11-15) in Level 2 in Square L11, from theeast. Behind the cores lies the inner surface of the wall. (Photo by
S. ­Kadowaki)

and eastern sides of the “snowman-shaped” house. On
the eastern side (Squares L11 and M11), we recovered
three clay-lined bins (L11-81, 83, and 105) and fivehearths (L11-58, 80, 82, 106, and 107). One of the latter
was lined with angular, burned cobbles (L11-106). The
bins were filled with ashy, loose sediments that are notvery different from the surrounding outdoor deposits,
indicating the secondary depositional nature of the fill.
Among the abundant refuse in these areas, particularly notable are a number of clusters (at least nine) of
flaked obsidian artifacts distributed in Squares M11
and L11 (M11-37 and L11-98, 108, 109, 110, and 114).
Each cluster is tightly concentrated (less than 10–20 cm
in diameter) and consists mainly of flakes with apparently few chips, indicating their deposition by secondary
disposal, which in turn suggests the practice of cleaning
lithic knapping areas that are located somewhere else. In
addition, we noted that complete ground-stone artifacts
were distributed in locations distinct from the areas withflaked stone clusters. The former tend to be located in thewestern part of Square L11 and southeastern corner ofSquare L10—that is, west of the obsidian clusters.
Level 3 represents a reoccupation of buildings that wereconstructed in the underlying Level 4. This is similar tothe occupational history noted in Levels 1 and 2, with theformer representing reoccupation of buildings originallyconstructed in the latter phase. In this sense, it is interesting that Levels 1 and 3 are similar in the spatial organization of architectural features and activity areas. In Levels 1
and 3, we found no clay bins or hearths inside the “snow-

This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=bullamerschoorie.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.

2015

THE 2013 EXCAVATIONS AT HACI ELAMXANLI TEPE, AZERBAIJAN

9

Fig. 9. Architectural plan of Level 3 at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, showing major features with their context numbers. (Drawing by T. Miki and S. Kadowaki)

man-shaped” houses, although these features frequently
occurred in the outdoor space. On the other hand, four
clay bins and one pit were found in the “snowman-shaped”
house in Level 2, and two hearths were recovered inside
the house in Level 4 (Nishiaki et al. in press).
Neolithic Level 4. In the 2013 season, we did not reachthe occupational surface of Level 4, which is defined by

the floor of a large round structure (M10-105) in Square
M10, excavated in the 2012 season. However, in the 2013season, we partially excavated deposits immediately
above this floor in Squares M11, L10, and L11. This is acontinuation of deposits from Square M10. These deposits consisted of numerous mud bricks fallen off a circularwall (M10-105). We also found a similar deposit of fallen
mud bricks inside the newly found round structure inThis journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=bullamerschoorie.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.

10

NISHIAKI ET AL.

BASOR 374

Fig. 10. A “snowman-shaped” building in Neolithic Level 3 at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, from the west. Note that the smaller roundstructures for storage are seen at the bottom right. (Photo by S. Kadowaki)

Fig. 11. A round structure in Level 3, Square M11, from the north. It contained a clay bin (M11-17) and a mud-walled feature filledwith ashy sediments (M11-23/24). (Photo by T. Miki)

This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=bullamerschoorie.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.

2015

THE 2013 EXCAVATIONS AT HACI ELAMXANLI TEPE, AZERBAIJAN

11

Square M10 (M10-20). This deposit is located below thefloor of Level 3, and we expect to find a lower floor under
the fallen mud-brick deposits, as seen in Square M10.
Post-Neolithic Occupations. This season, we exposed
post-Neolithic features and artifacts in deposits stratigraphically overlying Level 1. For example, we recovered
a stone cluster (M11-3) in the northern part of Square
M11. Although this feature appears to continue farther
toward the east, it consists of ca. 100 boulders measuring
around 20 cm in size. As this feature was associated withno artifacts, its date cannot be determined. Immediately
southwest of the stone cluster, we found a complete pot of
the Antique period, buried in a standing position (M118), although its relationship to the stone cluster is unclear.
Other, probably modern features are human burials
in Squares L10 and L11. We recovered seven skeletons,of which four were children. Three skeletons were facing
southwest, probably toward Mecca, and are most likelyof the Islamic period or later in age. On the other hand,the arms of the other two skeletons were crossed overtheir chests and may be representative of burial customsof other religions (Christianity?). In any case, the highest part of the tepe appears to have been used for humanburials in relatively recent time periods.
To summarize, in the 2013 season we extended the
excavation area over a 10 × 10 m square in order to refine our understanding of occupational levels at the siteand expose further architectural remains. As a result, ourinitial characterization of Neolithic levels (Levels 1–4) in
Square M10 was found to be applicable to adjacent areas(Squares M11, L10, and L11), where four architecturalphases were also recognizable. We also noted a similar
pattern of occupational history over the excavated areas—that is, the main occupations in Levels 4 and 2, and reoccupation in Levels 3 and 1, which constitute the two main
occupation horizons (Levels 1–2 and Levels 3–4).
Another notable find in this season was the repetitive
occurrence of a similar architectural organization characterized by the “snowman-shaped” plan and its adjacentround storage feature. Although the excavated area isstill limited, the continuity of architectural features, interms of similarities in form, size, and spatial organization through different occupational horizons, is notable.
This may represent a vernacular architectural traditionof the Neolithic inhabitants at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe anddeserves a comparative analysis with architecture documented at other settlements (see below).

Material Remains
Pottery
Pottery was noted right from the beginning of the occupation, during the 2012 season of excavations. However,Fig. 12. Neolithic pottery from Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe: (1) chaff-tempered coarse ware, (2) mineral-tempered coarse ware, and (3) mineral-tempered common ware. (Photo by K. Shimogama)

the number of sherds (n = 18) was remarkably small incomparison with the great quantity of lithic artifacts fromthis site and the volume of pottery at the later Neolithic
settlement of Göytepe (Nishiaki et al. 2013). The 2013
excavations yielded an even smaller number of Neolithic
potsherds (three pieces) (Fig. 12). Based on the 2012 collection, the Neolithic sherds of Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe havebeen classified into four major wares: fine ware, mineraltempered common ware, mineral-tempered coarse ware,and chaff-tempered coarse ware. As noted in Table 1, the2013 collection represents the two mineral-tempered wares
and the chaff-tempered ware, lacking fine ware (paintedware). All the Neolithic specimens are body sherds, measuring less than 6 cm in width. For this reason, it is practically impossible to reconstruct the original vessel shape.
These specimens are significant additions to the small
pottery assemblage from Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe. Combining samples from the two seasons, the pottery assemblage
indicates the more common occurrences of mineraltempered wares rather than chaff-tempered coarse ware.
Sherds more or less comparable with the wares common
at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe have been found at Göytepe. However, the remarkable rarity of pottery at the former site
and its association with a painted fine ware reminiscentof the northern Mesopotamian tradition (Nishiaki et al.
in press) point to the unique traits of this assemblage. In
addition, the prevalence of mineral-tempered pottery differs from the situation at the later settlement of Göytepe,where chaff-tempered pottery is dominant.
On a regional scale, the pottery assemblage mostcomparable with that of Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe is found at
Horizon V, the lowest level of Aknashen, Armenia. The
assemblage from the latter, containing two painted pots

This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=bullamerschoorie.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.

NISHIAKI ET AL.

12

BASOR 374

Table 1. The Neolithic Sherds from the 2013 Season at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe
Contexts
Black andcompact
sediments inan open area
(M11-19)

Level

1

Ware
Mineraltempered
commonware

Inside thelarge roomof the“snowmanshaped”
house(L10-49)

3

Mineraltemperedcoarse ware

Insidethe smallroom of the“snowmanshaped”
house(L10-56)3

Chafftemperedcoarse ware

Paste
Fine andcompact;
contains
small brownminerals witha diameter of
0.1–0.5 mm
Coarse;includesabout 15%
dark brownminerals andmica in adiameter of
0.5–2.0 mm

2.0–5.0 mmorganic
inclusion,
5–10% brownand grayminerals, andsometimes
mica

Wall
Thickness

9 mm

9 mm

9–11 mmprobably imported from northern Mesopotamia, is also
reported to be dominated by mineral-tempered pottery(Badalyan et al. 2010: 216). Its partial chronological overlap with Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe has also been demonstrated
by radiocarbon dating (Nishiaki, Guliyev, and Kadowaki2015). Considering their chronological positions as theoldest pottery-bearing assemblages in the region, questions related to the local or foreign origins of the first pottery and the socioeconomic role of ceramics in the local
community should be investigated in the future.
Lithic Assemblages
The excavation of Squares L10, L11, and M11 in the2013 season yielded more than 4,000 pieces of flaked
stone artifacts from Neolithic contexts (i.e., Levels 1–4).
Flaked stone artifacts were also recovered from the topsoil (n = 324) and post-Neolithic deposits (n = 250);
their techno-typological features are similar to those of
Neolithic artifacts, suggesting that they are derived fromthe underlying Neolithic deposits. Here we describe
the assemblages from the Neolithic layers, focusing on
Levels 1–3 and excluding finds from the upper disturbed

Interior
Surface

Exterior
SurfaceCore

Dull yelloworange (10YR
Orange inGrayish7/3); covered
color (7.5YR
yellowwith buff slip7/6); wet(2.5Y
and treatedsmoothed
6/2)
by light
burnishing
GrayishDull yellow
Dullyellow-brown orange inyellow(10YR 4/2);
color (10YR(2.5Y 6/4
roughly6/4); roughlysmoothedsmoothed

Black;
roughlysmoothed

Black; lightburnishFiring Figure

Well
fired

Fig.
12:3

Well
fired

Fig.
12:2

Notes

Traces ofsecondaryfiring are
visibleon bothsurfaces,
especiallyon theinterior
surface

Yellowish Compact Fig.
gray
and well 12:1
(2.5Y
fired
4/1)

deposits. As Level 4 was partially excavated in this season, only a small assemblage (ca. 250 pieces) was recovered; this will be reported when a greater sample size isobtained in future work.
The following section describes the flaked stone artifact assemblages from Levels 1–3 in Squares L10, L11,
and M11 and compares them with those from the samelevels in Square M10 that we excavated in the previous
season. We did this because we did not sieve excavatedsediments in the former squares (see above for the reason
for this). In Square M10, we sieved at least 50% of the
Neolithic deposits and increased the rate of sieving to
100% for contexts with high artifact density. We compared the assemblages collected without sieving (Squares
L10, L11, and M11) with those collected through sieving(Square M10) and discuss below how differences in sampling methods influenced our account of lithic composition (raw materials, retouched tools, and debitage) anddata on lithic dimensions.
Regarding lithic raw materials, the assemblages fromthe 2012 and 2013 seasons show a similar range of rocktypes, including obsidian, red-brown flint, green tuff,
and red dacite/rhyolite, among others (Kadowaki, Gu-

This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=bullamerschoorie.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.

2015

THE 2013 EXCAVATIONS AT HACI ELAMXANLI TEPE, AZERBAIJAN

13

Table 2. Frequency of Obsidian and Other Lithic Raw Material, by Excavation Squares and Neolithic Levels at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe
SquareM10 (2012)

M11 (2013)

L10 (2013)

L11 (2013)

Raw Material
Obsidian
Others
Total
Obsidian
Others
Total
Obsidian
Others
Total
Obsidian
Others
Total

Level 1 (%)

Level 2 (%)

Level 3 (%)

469
349
818
72
31
103
124
43
167
142
60
202

1,037 (44.7)
1,285 (55.3)
2,322 (100.0)
236 (64.3)
131 (35.7)
367 (100.0)
112 (56.9)
85 (43.1)
197 (100.0)
179 (70.2)
76 (29.8)
255 (100.0)

416
364
780
187
81
268
743
266
1,009
1,000
240
1,240

(57.3)(42.7)(100.0)(69.9)(30.1)(100.0)(74.3)(25.7)(100.0)(70.3)(29.7)(100.0)(53.3)(46.7)(100.0)(69.8)(30.2)(100.0)(75.6)(26.4)(100.0)(81.6)(19.4)(100.0)Note the differences arising from the presence or absence of sieving between the 2012 and2013 seasons, respectively.

liyev, and Nishiaki in press). Obsidian was most likely
imported from sources in the southern Caucasus, andongoing geochemical analyses should allow us to identify
specific source locations. Potential sources of red-brown
flint are outcrops located upstream along the Aghstafa
River, ca. 40–60 km away from Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.
Various volcanic rocks and green tuff are locally available within a range of 10 km around the site. In all levels,
obsidian occurs more frequently in the 2013 assemblages
than in the previous season (Table 2). Obsidian in the2012 assemblages (Square M10) accounts for 45–57% of
the total raw material and increases to 57–82% in the 2013season (Squares M11, L10, and L11). We may attribute
this difference to spatial variations in the occurrence ofraw material types through Levels 1–3; however, a moreparsimonious explanation is the absence of sieving in
the latter excavated areas leading to a biased collection.
This is because obsidian artifacts have higher visibility
in comparison with other rock types, owing to the lusterof obsidian. By contrast, other lithic raw materials aremostly matte in texture; some, such as red dacite/rhyolite, are not easily recognizable as artifacts, owing to their
physical properties. Thus, small flakes of raw materials
other than obsidian are likely to be underrepresented in
the 2013 assemblages, which were not sieved.
The range and frequency of retouched tool types
are broadly similar between the 2012 and 2013 seasons(Table 3), both being characterized by high proportionsof burins and retouched blades, with some distinct tools
such as trapezes, sickle elements, and thick, round scrapers (Fig. 13). The two seasons, however, differ from eachother in the proportions of certain types, particularly trapezes, which are fewer in the 2013 assemblage. Given thatthe mean size of trapezes, including unfinished/broken
ones, is ca. 10 mm, they are likely to be underrepresented
owing to the lack of sieving in the 2013 excavations. The
underrepresentation of small objects in the 2013 collection is also indicated by the lower proportion of burin
spalls. Although these are not technically retouched, they
are included in the list of retouched tools to indicate theirrelative occurrence with respect to burins. The percentage of burin spalls is similar to that of burins in the 2012season, while they are greatly underrepresented in the2013 collection, which lacked sieving.
Table 4 compares relative frequencies of debitage
types between the two seasons, including unretouchedflakes/blades, chips (< 10 mm), cores, and core-trimming elements. Among these types, chips occur far lessfrequently in the 2013 assemblage, most likely due tothe absence of sieving. Otherwise, the debitage of bothseasons indicates a similar lithic technology characterized by the production of obsidian blades/bladelets fromsingle platform cores. These blades/bladelets form themain blanks for various retouched tools. Other raw material types are represented mostly by irregular flakes,
although some blades/bladelets of red-brown flint andgreen tuff are shaped into sickle elements.
In the 2012 season, obsidian blade production was
indicated only by blade products and a few exhausted
cores. However, the 2013 excavation yielded three large
obsidian blade cores, indicating that blade production
was practiced on-site (Fig. 13:27–29). The three blade
cores were found in association with the “snowmanshaped” building that continued to be used in Levels 1–2.
One of them (L11-47; Fig. 13:29) from Level 1 was recovered immediately outside the building (see Fig. 4), while

This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=bullamerschoorie.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.

14

NISHIAKI ET AL.

BASOR 374

Fig. 13. Flaked stone artifacts from Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe. These comprise: (1–21) trapezes, including broken or unfinished pieces; (22–23) burins;(24) thick, round scraper; (25–26) bladelet cores; and (27–29) blade cores. All are made of obsidian except for some of red-brown flint (8) and red
dacite/rhyolite (24). Note differences in scales. (Drawing by S. Kadowaki and H. Nakata)

the other two (L11-49; Fig. 13:27–28) from Level 2 were
found together inside the same building near the wall(see Fig. 6). They were lying flat on their flaked surfaces.
Although sediments around these cores were wet-sieved,
we found no products or byproducts (including chips)

resulting from their reduction. These recovery contexts
suggest that the cores were cached in the domestic spacefor future reuse. Among single-platform cores, the largest one (Fig. 13:28) is circular in cross section, with evidence for the detachment of irregular blades or flakes

This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=bullamerschoorie.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.

2015

THE 2013 EXCAVATIONS AT HACI ELAMXANLI TEPE, AZERBAIJAN

Table 3. Frequency of Retouched Flaked Stone Tools
from Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe (Levels 1–3)

Trapeze
Unfinished/broken trapeze
Sickle element
Borer
Scraper
Denticulated blade
Denticulated flake
Notched blade
Notched flake
Retouched blade
Retouched flake
Nibbled blade
Nibbled flake
Burin
Burin spall
Splintered piece
Truncation
OthersTotal

2012
Season (%)

2013
Season (%)

17
(2.0)
23
(2.8)
34
(4.1)
9
(1.1)
25
(3.0)
21
(2.5)
9
(1.1)
8
(1.0)
3
(0.4)
80
(9.6)
54
(6.5)
34
(4.1)
5
(0.6)
225 (27.0)
243 (29.2)
32
(3.8)
10
(1.2)
1
(0.1)
833 (100.0)

3
(0.3)
0
(0.0)
21
(2.0)
3
(0.3)
19
(1.8)
37
(3.5)
3
(0.3)
11
(1.0)
8
(0.7)
134 (12.5)
46(4.3)
121 (11.3)2(0.2)
402 (37.5)
203 (18.9)
41
(3.8)
18
(1.7)
0
(0.0)
1,072 (100.0)

Note the differences arising from the presence or absence of sieving
between the 2012 and 2013 season, respectively.

Table 4. Frequency of Flaked Stone Debitage Typesfrom Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe (Levels 1–3)

Cortical flakePart-cortical flake
Flake
Part-cortical blade
Blade/bladelet
Chip
DebrisCrested piece
Platform tablet
Core edge flake
Core
Total

2012
Season (%)

2013
Season (%)

33
(1.1)
114
(3.7)
1,452 (47.1)7(0.2)
362 (11.7)
910 (29.5)
105
(3.4)
4
(0.1)
26
(0.8)
0
(0.0)
72
(2.3)
3,085 (100.0)

28
(1.0)
95
(3.3)
1,991 (68.9)4(0.1)
479 (16.6)
184
(6.4)
5
(0.2)
1
(0.0)
30
(1.0)
2
(0.1)
72
(2.5)
2,891 (100.0)

Note the differences arising from the presence or absence of sieving
between the 2012 and 2013 seasons, respectively.

on all faces. On the other hand, the other two cores (Fig.
13:27, 29) are flattened in cross section and indicate
detachment of regular, parallel blades struck from only
half of the periphery of their striking platforms. The twocores also show abraded or slightly battered ridges at the
periphery of their worked faces or at the unflaked surface
on the back. These rounded ridges possibly resulted from15

the use of vices to stabilize cores during knapping. This
technique indicates the use of pressure flaking, which has
been suggested at some sites of the Shomutepe-Shulaveri
culture (Badalyan et al. 2007; 2010). Along with theseobservations, their size variations also indicate that thesethree blade cores appear to represent different stages ofcore reduction. The core preparation stage is represented
by the largest core (Fig. 13:28), followed by regularblade removals that progressively reduced the core size,
as noted in the smaller two flat cores with blade scars(Fig. 13:27, 29).
As these blade cores (95–170 mm in length; n = 3)
are distinctly larger than bladelet cores (38–39.5 mm inlength; n = 2; Fig. 13:25–26), it is unclear whether the latter represent a distinct category or resulted from the progressive reduction of the former. The widths of blades/
bladelets are distributed in a single mode (Fig. 14),indicating their continuous production. However, size
was probably important for blank selection, as seen in
the exclusive use of small blades and bladelets (ca. 11
mm in mean width) for the production of trapezes (Fig.
13:1–21). Additionally, the data on the dimensions of
blades/bladelets is influenced by the presence or absenceof sieving, as narrower pieces occur more frequently inthe sieved 2012 assemblage.
To summarize, the flaked stone assemblages from the2013 season display techno-typological features broadly
similar to those from the 2012 season, despite variability
in the relative frequencies of raw material types, compositions of retouched tools and debitage, and dimensionsof blades/bladelets, arising from the absence of sieving.
We aimed at clearly documenting the sampling methods
used and the occurrences of small lithics (particularly
microliths and bladelets), as an accurate assessment of
their frequencies and techno-typological characteristics is necessary to understand the relationship between
the Neolithic and Mesolithic lithic traditions. This relationship, in turn, has profound implications for the
Neo­lithization of the southern Caucasus, particularly
in regard to the degree to which indigenous Mesolithic
foragers contributed to this process.
Ground-Stone Artifacts
The 2012 and 2013 seasons of excavations at Hacı
Elamxanlı Tepe yielded 1,041 pieces of ground-stone
artifacts. More than 80% of them were recovered from
Neolithic Levels 1–4, while the rest were found in upper
disturbed deposits, including topsoil. The finds from thelatter contexts are likely to be intrusive materials fromunderlying Neolithic deposits, as they display similar
techno-typological characteristics. Thus, this preliminary report describes all the ground-stone artifacts together as a single assemblage.

This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=bullamerschoorie.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.

NISHIAKI ET AL.

16

BASOR 374

Fig. 14. Distribution of the width of unretouched blades/bladelets from Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe (Levels 1–3). Note differences
arising from the presence or absence of sieving between the 2012 and 2013 seasons, respectively. (Graphs by S. Kadowaki)

Table 5. Frequency of General Categories of GroundStone Artifacts from Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe
Grinding slab and quern
MortarGrinder and hand-stone
PestlePounder
Cobble/pebble tool
Abrader and polisher
Ax and chisel
Shaft straightener
Unidentifiable fragment
Total
Pebble (“sling ball”)
Debitage (flake and preform)
Grand Total

Number

Percentage

19
2
89
3
79
59
17
3
1
1
273
685
83
1,041

  7.0
  0.7
32.6
  1.1
28.9
21.6
  6.2
  1.1
  0.4
  0.4
100.0/26.2
65.8
  8.0
100.0

Table 5 lists frequencies of basic categories of groundstone artifacts. Although their classification principally
follows the ground-stone typology proposed by Wright(1992), they also incorporate some types reported fromother Neolithic sites in the southern Caucasus (Badalyan
et al. 2007; Hamon 2008). Thus, the typology reflects

characteristics of the assemblage from Hacı Elamxanlı
Tepe. For example, the most dominant category is pebbles constituting “sling balls.” Although these are natural,unmodified pebbles (3–6 cm in length), their frequent
occurrence, sometimes as caches in the settlement(Nishiaki et al. in press), indicates that they were gathered for some important purpose.
Excluding pebbles and debitage, we estimated therelative frequencies of other ground-stone artifacts(Table 5). Among this group, about 40% comprise
tools that are mainly related to food-processing activities, predominantly grinders/hand-stones, followed bygrinding slabs/querns, pestles, and mortars. We differentiated grinders (Fig. 15:4; 22–29 cm in length) fromhand-stones (Fig. 15:5–6; 11–19 cm in length) on thebasis of their dimensions, which resemble size distributions reported by Hamon (2008: 94). Hand-stones
may have been used for tasks other than food processing (Hamon 2008: 108); however, along with grinders,
they are characterized by ground surfaces often associated with transverse striations and pecked scars, whichindicate their use and maintenance as tools moved ina linear back-and-forth direction on grinding slabs orquerns. These grinding tools are also abundant at other
Neolithic sites in the southern Caucasus (Hamon 2008)

This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=bullamerschoorie.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.

2015

THE 2013 EXCAVATIONS AT HACI ELAMXANLI TEPE, AZERBAIJAN

17

Fig. 15. Ground-stone artifacts from Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, comprising: (1) shaft straightener, (2) chisels, (3) core pounders, (4) grinders, (5) handstone, and (6) hand-stone/crushing cobble. (Drawing by S. Kadowaki)

This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=bullamerschoorie.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.

18

NISHIAKI ET AL.

and are r­ eminiscent of the abundant grinding slabs andhand-stones at Pre-Pottery Neolithic B villages in theLevant (Wright 1993; Kadowaki 2014).
Other major tool categories are pounders and cobble/
pebble tools (Fig. 15:3), which partly correspond to hammer stones in Hamon’s typology (2008; 2012). They consist of various tool types defined by the kind and extent ofmodification traces, such as flaking, pecking, and grinding.
Although the identification of their specific functions requires use-wear and residue analyses (Hamon 2008), theiruses must have included pounding for the production andmaintenance of the abundant grinding tools that often
show pecked scars on their sides and working faces.
A single shaft straightener was recovered—a rare andnotable tool with a U-shaped groove along its transverse axis (Fig. 15:1). The orientation of the groove isthe same as that seen in shaft straighteners from other
Neolithic sites in the southern Caucasus and the Zagros
region, in contrast to those with a dominance of longitudinal grooves in the Levant and northern Mesopotamia(Badalyan et al. 2007; Arimura et al. 2010).
Another characteristic of the ground-stone artifacts
from Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe is the scarcity of axes/chisels in comparison with sites related to the ShomutepeShulaveri culture (Hamon 2008). So far, this category isrepresented by a single piece of a small chisel (Fig. 15:2)
and two tip fragments from ground edges.
Most tools described above are made of locally available volcanic rocks, such as andesite and basalt in boulders, cobbles, and pebbles. These occur in neighboring
riverbeds, from which we suggest the raw material was
procured and where the initial stages of tool production
took place. On the other hand, the frequent occurrenceof pounding tools along with debitage at the site indicatethat the production and maintenance of tools were performed in the settlement, particularly at the household
level, where food processing was practiced mainly withgrinding tools. However, we currently know very little
about the introduction and development of this technological system related to ground-stone artifacts in thesouthern Caucasus. Answering this question requires
future investigation of chronologically earlier groundstone assemblages and comparisons with neighboring
regions that may have influenced the Neolithization process in the southern Caucasus.
Bone and Antler Artifacts
A total of 77 pieces of worked bone implements wererecovered from the 2013 excavations at Hacı Elamxanlı
Tepe. They were classified on the basis of their morphology (Table 6). As is the case at most Neolithic sites in thesouthern Caucasus (Badalyan et al. 2007; 2010; Hansen,

BASOR 374

Table 6. List of Bone and Antler Tools from the 2013
Season at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe
Level 4 Level 3 Level 2 Level 1
Awl
SpatulaBipoint
PaletteButtonette
Flesher
HammerOrnament
Indeterminate
Total

2
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
6

28
0
2
3
1
0
0
0
7
41

13
3
1
0
0
0
3
0
1
21

4
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
3
9

Total
47
3
3
5
1
1
4
1
12
77

Mirtskhulava, and Bastert-Lamprichs 2007; Lyonnet et al.
2012), awls or pointed tools are predominant in the assemblage (n = 47), followed by smaller numbers of othercategories. In terms of manufacturing technology, thesetools are made on blanks produced by the groove-andsplinter technique (Fig. 16:1–2). Although this practice
is consistent throughout the occupation, some differences are observed between the lower (4–3) and upper(2–1) levels. Of great importance is the introduction ofhammers in Level 2 (Fig. 16:5), fashioned out of the antler of red deer (Cervus elaphus). These differ from similar
implements of the subsequent period, such as that seenat Göytepe, as they lack a perforation on the body. The
frequent use of antler has been widely documented atsettlements belonging to the late Shomutepe-Shulaveri
culture like Göytepe (Narimanov 1987; Guliyev andNishiaki 2012). Thus, this invention, as well as an apparent increase of hide-working tools (spatula and flesher)(Fig. 16:3), can be regarded as the first sign of remarkabledevelopments in the bone artifact industry during theearly stage of the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture.
It is also important that “palettes” from Hacı Elamxanlı
Tepe show close techno-morphological resemblanceswith those from Aratashen in the Ararat plain (Badalyan
et al. 2007: fig. 6g) and Tilkitepe in the Lake Van region(Korfmann 1982: Abb. 17–5) (Fig. 16:4). Although thechronological position of Tilkitepe remains highly problematic, the virtually indistinguishable similarities in assemblages may point to some links between the southern
Caucasus and Lake Van regions at the beginning of thesixth millennium b.c.
Small Finds
The category of small finds includes a variety of objects. The most common are burned tabular clay fragments of various shapes, which exceed potsherds inThis journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=bullamerschoorie.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.

2015

THE 2013 EXCAVATIONS AT HACI ELAMXANLI TEPE, AZERBAIJAN

19

Fig. 16. Worked bone and antler implements from Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe from the 2013 season. (Drawing by
S. Arai)quantity. They were regularly found in all occupationlevels at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe. However, comparable
specimens have been rarely encountered in the muchlarger excavations at Göytepe. This fact may point to theexistence of a particular way of using clay among theoldest Pottery Neolithic communities. Considering theirtabular shape and the occasional imprints of plants, they
may represent fragments of containers, clay lining onsome storage facilities or ovens, and even building material. Identification of their variations and uses deserves
detailed investigation.
Another commonly found group of clay objects comprises sling balls. As referred to above, most sling-balls
are made of stone, but some are also clay. The latter resemble stone sling balls in shape and size, measuring approximately 3–5 cm in length and about 3 cm in width.
They have often been discovered in the form of a cache.
Clay objects also include one piece of a peanut-shaped
object (Fig. 17), measuring 3.3 cm in height, 1.5 cm inthickness, and 2 cm in width. It is well fired and has a depression about 3 mm deep and 5 mm in diameter along
the center of one side. It was discovered in the ash deposits of an open space in Level 3 (L10-74). Although the
Shomutepe-Shulaveri cultural inventory includes a large

Fig. 17. The peanut-shaped clay material from Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.
(Photo by K. Shimogama)

diversity of clay objects and figurines (Kiguradze 1986:
Abb. 82), no comparable object was noted here.
In regard to ornamental objects, one disk-shaped
bead made of a white stone is noteworthy. It is a tiny

This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=bullamerschoorie.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.

NISHIAKI ET AL.

20
Table 7. Macrobotanical Remains fromHacı Elamxanlı Tepe
Macrobotanical Remains
Food Plants
Barley, grain
Hulled wheat, grain
Naked wheat, grain
Cereal, grain
Barley, rachis
Hulled wheat, spikelet base/glume
Naked wheat, spikelet base/glume
Chaff/rachis (barley or wheat)
Lens sp. (lentil/legume)
Amygdalus sp.
Crataegus sp.
Celtis sp.
Wild Taxa
Artemisia-type
Asteraceae
Heliotropium sp.
Boraginaceae
Brassicaceae
Gypsophilla
SileneCaryophillaceae
Chenopodium-type
Trifoliae
Erodium-type
Lamiaceae
Bromus sp.
Poa-type
Panicaceae
Poaceae
AdonisOther wild taxa
Indeterminate
Total

Numberof Items

Frequency*

175
37
3
375
121
401
13
423
2
5
1
2

1.00
1.00
0.33
1.00
0.67
1.00
0.50
1.00
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17

191
1
34
1
61
11
3
26
300
38
3
3
18
19
3
52
3
27
Uncounted
2,352

1.00
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.50
0.17
0.33
0.83
0.83
1.00
0.17
0.33
0.33
0.67
0.50
0.83
0.33
0.83
—

Note: Preliminary counts are based on six samples from Level 4.
* Frequency refers to the ratios of occurrences out of the six
samples.

specimen, measuring 5 mm in diameter and 2 mm inthickness, and was discovered during the flotation of soil
samples. Our records indicate that it was derived from aclay-lined pit oven in the “snowman-shaped” house in
Level 2 (L11-22).
Plant Remains
More than 90 sediment samples were recovered forarchaeobotanical analysis from both seasons of excavation. During the 2013 season, we collected approximately

BASOR 374

60 sediment samples from various contexts and from all
squares, including hearths, floors, ash pits, bins, andmortars. Minute concentrations of grains visible to thenaked eye were also identified.
The samples were processed through flotation witha 0.3 m mesh sieve. Preliminary results of the analysis
of six samples from Level 4 are presented to provide
an overview of the plant assemblage of the oldest occupation level at this settlement. Five samples were collected from the floor of the round building in Square
M10 (M10-96) and one from the large ash pit locatedat the northwest corner of the same square (M10-91). A
total of 27 liters of soil was sampled (2.5–6 liters each;
average of 4.5 liters), containing 170 ml of light fractions. Table 7 lists the number of plant species and their­frequency.
Almost all identified macrobotanical remains werecharred, except for seeds of Boraginaceae and Celtis sp.,which were mineralized. Barley is the most predominantcereal grain, and more than 100 rachis of barley wererecovered. Hulled wheat exceeds barley in the numberof glumes/chaff, although this is partly due to the fragmentary condition of hulled wheat glumes. Therefore,barley is considered to be the main cereal used at Hacı
Elamxanlı Tepe, followed by hulled wheat. Many of thebarley rachis have a clear trait indicating that they were of
the domesticated variety; that is, each rachis retains thebasal part of the upper rachis. Specimens that were notcharred include two-rowed barley spikelets, which wereretrieved inside a mud brick.
The important characteristic of this assemblage is the
scarcity of free-threshing wheat. Only three wheat grains
were of the round, plump form of the naked variety, andthe number of grain/rachis of the free-threshing variety
accounts for merely 3.6% of the hulled types. This ratioshows a striking difference from the neighboring, chronologically later site of Göytepe, in which free-threshing
wheat along with barley are among the primary crop
plants (Nishiaki et al. in press). The other possible foodplants, which occur in small amounts, are lentils (Lenssp.), hackberries (Celtis sp.), almonds (Amygdalus sp.),and hawthorns (Crataegus sp.).
Among the wild/weedy species, Chenopodium-type,
Artemisia-type, Heliotropium sp., Bromus sp., and several
kinds of Brassicaceae seeds are common. Most of thesewild taxa are also common at Göytepe (Kadowaki et al.
2015). In particular, the presence of the Artemisia-type issignificant, as large amounts were discovered at Göytepe,often recovered in dense concentrations, suggesting intentional gathering. The occurrence of Artemisia-type atHacı Elamxanlı Tepe might suggest intentional exploitation from the beginning of the Shomutepe-Shulaveri
occupation in the region.

This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=bullamerschoorie.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.

2015

THE 2013 EXCAVATIONS AT HACI ELAMXANLI TEPE, AZERBAIJAN

21

from Level 3 indicates that they were also possibly usedas draft animals (Fig. 19).

Discussion

Fig. 18. Culling profile for caprines. (For age estimation method, see
Helmer et al. 2007.) (Graph by S. Arai)

The preference for free-threshing wheat is considered
to be one of the characteristics of the Neolithic Caucasus(Hovsepyan and Willcox 2008; Arimura et al. 2010: 82;
Lyonnet et al. 2012: 161). As a matter of fact, free-threshing wheat was commonly exploited at Göytepe (Kado­
waki et al. 2015). Given the older chronological positionof Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, which has rarely yielded freethreshing wheat, it is possible that the intensive cultivation of this type of wheat was a phenomenon of a rather
late period of the Pottery Neolithic in the Middle Kura
Valley. A detailed examination of the plant assemblageof Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe will shed light on the processes of
establishing a food-producing economy characteristicof the southern Caucasus—that is, intensive exploitationof free-threshing cereals.
Faunal Remains
A faunal assemblage of 5,602 fragments (ca. 19 kg in
weight) was recovered during the 2013 season of excavations at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe. All specimens were recovered by hand during the excavation. As mentioned
elsewhere (Nishiaki et al. in press), the animals exploitedin this settlement were primarily domestic caprines(more than 80%) and, to a lesser extent, cattle, pig, andgame species. The 2013 assemblage verified this pattern. As at other Neolithic sites in the region (Badalyan
et al. 2007), the culling profile for caprines from Hacı
Elamxanlı Tepe indicates that they were primarily raisedfor meat (Fig. 18).
The assemblage from the 2012 season shows that thefrequency of cattle increases slightly in the upper levels(Nishiaki et al. in press). However, the frequency in the2013 assemblage shows no comparable trend: cattle arequite rare throughout the four occupation levels (Table
8). While the precise reason for this inconsistency remains unclear, the age profile indicates that cattle wereused for meat. Block vertebrae formation in a cattle bone

The significance of Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe lies in its
chronology. Eight radiocarbon dates have firmly placed
the four occupation levels in a period ranging from ca.
5950 to 5800 cal b.c. (Nishiaki, Guliyev, and Kadowaki2015). This date range is earlier than those from other
Shomutepe-Shulaveri sites in the Middle Kura Valley, suchas Aruchlo and Mentesh (Lyonnet et al. 2012), and fromsites in the Araxes Valley, such as Aratashen (Badalyan
et al. 2010). The occupation levels of Hacı Elamxanlı Tepepartially overlap with those of the lowest phase at the site
of Aknashen (Badalyan et al. 2010), considered to represent the earliest stage of the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture(Nishiaki, Guliyev, and Kadowaki 2015). As describedabove, the extension of the excavation area in the 2013season provides a good basis to define the starting pointof this culture and its subsequent development, throughcomparisons with evidence from later settlements. At thesame time, those records help us to evaluate the originsof this culture. In fact, archaeological records from Hacı
Elamxanlı Tepe include a range of elements that have notbeen identified at later settlements, including those related to architecture, pottery, lithic and bone industries,
clay and ornamental objects, and plant and animal exploitation. The assemblages also exhibit links with boththe local Mesolithic culture and the coeval Pottery Neolithic cultures situated to the south.
In terms of architecture, the discovery of a uniquestructure termed the “snowman-shaped” building is important. This house plan has never been encountered in
the late Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture at Göytepe, where
we excavated extensively (more than 1,000 m2) within
Neolithic settlements that are dated a few hundredyears later than Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe. Although domestic buildings at Göytepe are circular (like those at Hacı
Elamxanlı), they tend to be arranged around an open
space and are connected with each other by appendicular walls to form a building compound with a courtyard(Guliyev and Nishiaki 2012; 2014). Such courtyard structures characterize Neolithic settlements, at least in theupper levels of Göytepe (Levels 1–5), although we do nothave sufficient exposures of architectural arrangementsin the lower levels (Levels 6–14). On the basis of theseobservations, we hypothesize that a change in architectural organization occurred between Level 1 at Hacı
Elamxanlı Tepe and Level 5 at Göytepe (approximately
between 5800 and 5500 cal b.c., according to Nishiaki,
Guliyev, and Kadowaki 2015). This change in domestic
buildings has implications for a concomitant shift inThis journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=bullamerschoorie.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.

22

BASOR 374

NISHIAKI ET AL.
Table 8. Faunal Remains from the 2013 Season at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe
Level 4(n = 84)
Taxa
Ovis aries
Capra hircus
Ovis aries/Capra hircus
Bos taurus
Sus scrofa
Gazella subgutturosa
Canis familiaris
Cervus elaphus
Capreolus capreolus
Ovis/Capra/Gazella
Lepus sp.
Vulpes vulpes
Bird
Fish
Tortoise
Mollusk
Small rodent
Frog
Total

NISP*
5
5
66
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
84

%
  6.0
  6.0
78.4
  1.2
  3.6
  0.0
  0.0
  0.0
  0.0
  0.0
  0.0
  0.0
  2.4
  0.0
  0.0
  1.2
  1.2
  0.0
100.0

Level 3(n = 519)
NISP
51
14
378
20
24
0
1
1
1
3
0
1
1
1
18
0
3
2
519

%
  9.8
  2.7
72.7
  3.9
  4.6
  0.0
  0.2
  0.2
  0.2
  0.6
  0.0
  0.2
  0.2
  0.2
  3.5
  0.0
  0.6
  0.4
100.0

Level 2(n = 334)
NISP
50
9
250
6
6
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
5
1
334

%
15.0
  2.7
74.8
  1.8
  1.8
  0.0
  0.0
  0.9
  0.0
  0.0
  0.3
  0.0
  0.3
  0.0
  0.6
  0.0
  1.5
  0.3
100.0

Level 1(n = 154)
NISP
26
4
104
3
7
1
1
3
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
154

%
16.9
  2.6
68.0
  1.9
  4.5
  0.6
  0.6
  1.9
  0.0
  0.0
  0.6
  0.6
  0.6
  0.0
  0.6
  0.0
  0.6
  0.0
100.0

Total
NISP
132
32
798
30
40
1
2
7
1
3
2
2
5
1
21
1
10
3
1,091

%
12.1
  2.9
73.1
  2.7
  3.7
  0.1
  0.2
  0.6
  0.1
  0.3
  0.2
  0.2
  0.5
  0.1
  1.9
  0.1
  0.9
  0.3
100.0

*NISP = Number of Identified Species

Fig. 19. Cattle vertebrae with pathological features. (Photo by K. Shimogama)This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=bullamerschoorie.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.

2015

THE 2013 EXCAVATIONS AT HACI ELAMXANLI TEPE, AZERBAIJANs­ ocial organization at the household level, such as sizeand composition, as indicated by several studies on thisissue for Neolithic communities in the Levant (Garfinkel
2006; Banning 2011; Kadowaki 2012).
Building layouts similar to the “snowman-shaped”
house at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe have been known fromthe early excavations at Shulaveris Gora and Imiris Gorain eastern Georgia (Munchaev 1982: 139–40). They havebeen also recovered by recent excavations at Aruchlo,
located nearby these sites (Hansen and Mirtskhulava
2012: 60–64), where Building Complexes I, II, and III
are each composed of a circular structure adjoined bycurvi­linear walls that create another circular room. Radiocarbon dates from this site are distributed in a range
between 5800 and 5300 cal b.c. (clustering at 5700 calb.c.), which roughly corresponds to the time span that
we suggest for the change in architectural organization
between Hacı Elamxanlı and Göytepe. Another possible
example of the “snowman-shaped” house has been reported from the lowest level of Aknashen (Horizon IV),in Armenia (Badalyan et al. 2010: 205). The architecturalplan of Horizon IV (dated between ca. 5850 and 5500 calb.c.) shows two circular structures (5 and 4.5 m in diameter, respectively) that are attached to each other, sharing
part of a wall (Badalyan et al. 2010). In this case, however,
the excavators suggest that the two circular structures
represent different occupational phases (Badalyan et al.
2010: 188). This is not the case for the architecture fromHacı Elamxanlı Tepe, in which two circular structures
were connected with a well-made passage, testifying topurposeful simultaneous construction. Given this observation, we suggest that the identification and interpretation of the “snowman-shaped” house must be based on
the examination of the contemporaneity of constituent
walls and the use of space in and around the structurein addition to a simple comparison of the building plan.
Differences from Göytepe are seen in the artifact assemblages as well—in the scarcity of pottery at Hacı Elamxanlı
Tepe and differences in the lithic typo-technology. The
Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe assemblages contain trapezes andbladelets to a greater extent than at Göytepe and other
Shomutepe-Shulaveri sites. While the greater frequency ofthese small artifacts at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe may be partly
due to sieving, the disparity seems too large to be explainedby this reason alone. Other important differences include
the more common occurrences of flake scrapers at Hacı
Elamxanlı Tepe. Scrapers of this type, made on rather
thick cortical flint flakes (Fig. 13:24), have rarely been encountered in the Göytepe assemblages. In addition, Hacı
Elamxanlı Tepe has a smaller quantity of obsidian artifacts(ca. 50–80%), which make up more than 80% of the lithic
assemblages from Göytepe. As these samples were collected by hand from both sites, the disparity is significant.

23

The ground-stone assemblage from Hacı Elamxanlı
Tepe includes almost all the basic tool categories of the
Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture (Hamon 2008). The rarityof polished axes and chisels deserves attention, as theyfrequently occur in the later settlements of Göytepe andother sites (Narimanov 1987). The bone-tool assemblageof Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe also exhibits similarities withlater assemblages, although it lacks some features, suchas the presence of antler hammers. As mentioned above,
a few of these occur only in the upper levels; their form
is less elaborate and devoid of a central hole for hafting.
Differences in the faunal and floral remains are observed. Our preliminary study demonstrates the common exploitation of barley at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe. The
rare use of free-threshing wheat is in striking contrast
to plant use at the later Shomutepe-Shulaveri sites, including Göytepe, where it constitutes one of the mostdominant cereal types (Arimura et al. 2010: 84). If this isindeed confirmed in further studies, one may suggest aremarkable shift in the use of major cultigens during theearly stage of the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture.
The faunal assemblages from Hacı Elamxanlı Tepealso exhibit some dissimilarity with those of Göytepe.
Rather unexpectedly, the faunal records indicate aheavier dependence on domesticated animals at thechronologically earlier site of Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, ascompared with that in the later periods at Göytepe. Morespecifically, the use of animals at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe ismore restricted, with limited exploitation of wild fauna.
This finding seems in accord with the changes in tooltypes mentioned above: for example, fewer axes/adzes,
which are generally regarded as wood-working tools, andantler hammers at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe. The more intensive use of forest resources might have become common
in the later phase of the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture.
This pattern may be correlated with an increase of humid
climatic conditions as suggested in palynological records
from the Lesser Caucasus (Joannin et al. 2013).
Thus, although the cultural assemblages from Hacı
Elamxanlı Tepe share basic elements with the later assemblages of the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture, they are
dissimilar in important ways. This testifies to considerable local cultural developments in the first half of thesixth millennium b.c. In other words, classic elementsof the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture (Narimanov 1987)
did not appear as a package in the southern Caucasus
but were established gradually, involving significant diachronic changes in a variety of cultural and economic
fields.
On the other hand, the relationship of the Hacı
Elamxanlı Tepe assemblages with those of the local preceding cultures has not been fully defined. This unsatisfactory situation is primarily owing to the lack of reliableThis journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=bullamerschoorie.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.

24

NISHIAKI ET AL.

field data from chronologically older sites. One may suggest that the microlithic components at Hacı Elamxanlı
Tepe are derived from local Mesolithic traditions. However, this conclusion needs to be considered with care.
Microliths at Hacı Elamxanlı differ from those of the
Mesolithic in the southern Caucasus in terms of theirfrequency and variety. The Mesolithic is characterized bya greater frequency and variety of microliths, including
both non-geometric (e.g., backed or truncated bladelets)and geometric forms (e.g., scalene or isosceles triangles)(Meshveliani et al. 2007). In this respect, the microliths atHacı Elamxanlı Tepe are distinct from those at Kmlo-2 in
the Armenian highlands, where the production of moreabundant and varied microliths might have lasted until
the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods (Arimura, Chataigner, and Gasparyan 2009; Arimura et al. 2010).
A few “aceramic Neolithic” lithic assemblages could
bridge the technological gap between the Mesolithic andHacı Elamxanlı Tepe assemblages. One such example isthe assemblage from Layer A2 at Kotias Klde, western
Georgia, which contains transverse arrowheads/trapezes, ventrally retouched denticulates, and flake scrapers (Meshveliani et al. 2007). Another possible example
is the collection from Anaseuli I, also in western Georgia, which includes trapezes, abundant burins, and thickscrapers (Korobkova 1996; Meshveliani 2013). Althoughthese sites are reported to be “Neolithic” or “aceramic
Neolithic,” their chronological or subsistence records are
too sparse to determine whether they represent a transitional stage from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic.
Thus gaps in our understanding of the local cultural sequence require new data before we can conclude that thetrapeze-dominant microlithic assemblage at Hacı Elamxanlı
Tepe is indigenous with cultural-historical roots in morevaried microlithic assemblages of the Mesolithic. This also
applies to conclusions drawn from non-lithic cultural items.
We now turn to a broader geographic perspective.
From an early stage of research, the food-producing
economy in the southern Caucasus was assumed to havea foreign origin, with possible cultural links to northern Mesopotamia (Abibullayev 1959; Munchaev 1982;
Narimanov 1987). The common construction of circularbuildings in the southern Caucasus and in the Halaf culture, and the presence of a few imported north Mesopotamian ceramics recovered in the former region, werefactors emphasized to argue for direct links between
these two regions. In recent years, this issue has resurfaced with the discovery of Hassuna-Samarra ceramics
from Aknashen upstream along the Araxes (Badalyan
et al. 2010: 194) and, most recently, from Hacı Elamxanlı
Tepe in the Middle Kura Valley (Nishiaki et al. in press).
Archaeological records from Hacı Elamxanlı Tepecan provide additional data to support those links. De-

BASOR 374

spite limitations arising from morphological comparison, we note that a “snowman-shaped” plan also occurs
in the late Pre-Halaf or Proto-Halaf contexts at Halula,
northern Syria, toward the end of the seventh millennium cal b.c. (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003: 104).
Although the Pre-Halaf and Proto-Halaf periods areprimarily defined by ceramic assemblages, these phases
are also characterized by the emergence of circular structures associated with multicellular rectangular buildings(Molist et al. 2013). These circular structures are considered early manifestations of the Halafian tholoi, which
are often mentioned in relation to numerous circular
structures at the Shomutepe-Shulaveri settlements in thesouthern Caucasus (Munchaev 1982; Chataigner 1995;
Hansen, Mirtskhulava, and Bastert-Lamprichs 2007).
One of the circular buildings in the late Pre-Halaf orProto-Halaf context at Halula consists of two circularrooms connected to each other via a passageway (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003: 104–10). This is likely to represent a house compound instead of successive building
constructions/occupations, resembling the “snowmanshaped” structure at Hacı Elamxanlı. Although circularbuildings at Halula have distinct architectural elements,
such as stone foundations and floor plastering (Molist
et al. 2013), the occurrence of a similar plan, contemporary with that at Hacı Elamxanlı, may indicate a culturallink between the southern Caucasus and northern Mesopotamia. However, such an idea of a remote cultural linkneeds to be cautiously examined (Hansen, Mirtskhulava,
and Bastert-Lamprichs 2007). This is a question worth
examining carefully in combination with other lines ofdata, such as the occurrence of fine painted wares reminiscent of the Hassuna, Samarra, and Halaf types at several Neolithic sites in the southern Caucasus, including
Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe (Chataigner 1995; Palumbi 2007;
Badalyan et al. 2010; Nishiaki et al. in press).
With respect to the lithic industry, trapezes at Hacı
Elamxanlı Tepe can be interpreted as part of a regional
cultural phenomenon because they also occur at Pottery
Neolithic sites in the south, as noted in our previous report (Nishiaki et al. in press). These Neolithic trapezes,
among other geometrics in the Levant, Mesopotamia,
and the Zagros region, are known to lack any continuous link with microliths of the Epipalaeolithic (Nishiaki
1993; Nishiaki, Azizi Kharanghi, and Abe 2013). Thispossible allochthonous cultural relationship is also suggested by the methods of retouching to fashion trapezes.
Trapezes at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe are made by segmenting bladelets. When the segmented ends are retouched,
they form oblique truncations—that is, steep retouch
toward the dorsal face—sometimes thinned by flat invasive retouch from the segmented ends. A single example
shows such invasive retouch totally covering its dorsal

This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=bullamerschoorie.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.

2015

THE 2013 EXCAVATIONS AT HACI ELAMXANLI TEPE, AZERBAIJAN

surface (Fig. 13:9). These methods appear different fromthose at Kmlo-2, where bifacial retouch is observable
on trapezes (Arimura, Chataigner, and Gasparyan 2009:18). In contrast, retouching methods at Hacı Elamxanlı
Tepe also characterize some of the trapezes at Pottery
Neolithic sites in Upper Mesopotamia (Nishiaki 1993),
including those contemporaneous with Hacı Elamxanlı,
such as Levels 4–10 at Sabi Abiyad (Copeland 1996).
The shaft straightener in the ground-stone industry is
another element indicating the existence of a widespreadcultural horizon. The specimen from Hacı Elamxanlı
Tepe retains a U-shaped groove along its transverse axis.
This is similar to those characterizing Neolithic sites not
only in the southern Caucasus but also in northern Mesopotamia and the Zagros—that is, in the eastern wingof the Fertile Crescent (Kozłowski and Aurenche 2005;
Arimura et al. 2010). Likewise, the well-developed boneindustry, comprising a large diversity of tool types suchas awls, points, hammers, dibbles, arrowheads, and palettes, may be regarded as a unique feature of the Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture. However, similar assemblages
existed at Tilkitepe, in the Lake Van region of southeast
Anatolia, where one of the northernmost Halafian settlements has been identified (Korfmann 1982). In addition,although comparable specimens have not been excavatedfrom Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, we should mention the puzzling bone objects with a series of incised striations often
recovered at Shomutepe-Shulaveri settlements including
Göytepe (Guliyev and Nishiaki 2012: 76). Similar objects
have been repeatedly recovered at early Pottery Neolithic
sites in northern Mesopotamia (e.g., Sabi Abyad, Syria[Spoor and Collet 1996: 473] and Haji Firuz, Iran [Voigt
1983: 210–12]), where they have been described as“counters” or “grooved bones.”
These similarities do not directly indicate that the
Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture originated from the eastern
wing of the Fertile Crescent. Future studies are necessary
to determine to what extent and how local Mesolithic
cultures and/or the foreign Pottery Neolithic entities of
the Fertile Crescent contributed to the formation of the
Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe assemblages. This interpretation
has direct relevance to the Neolithization scenario in
the southern Caucasus. The absence of any traces of local processes of domestication points to a foreign origin
for at least part of the economy, although contributions
from both local and foreign sources need to be considered when interpreting the formation of Shomutepe-­
Shulaveri culture. In this respect, it is interesting to recall
that obsidian trace element analyses have suggested a wayof relating the southern Caucasus with the eastern wingof the Fertile Crescent. Shomutepe-Shulaveri communities procured obsidian mainly from sources in the southern Caucasus. Contemporary communities of the Fertile

25

Crescent obtained obsidian primarily from southeast
Anatolia, from sources at Nemrut Dağ and Bingöl, which
formed another separate trade and exchange zone for obsidian (Badalyan, Chataigner, and Kohl 2004; Arimura
et al. 2010). This evidently exclusive distribution pattern
has led some authors to suggest that the elaborated obsidian network in Mesopotamia did not play an important role in the Neolithization processes of the southern
Caucasus (Arimura et al. 2010: 82). However, it is also
important to recognize that sources southeast of Sevan
Lake, Armenia, were continuously exploited by communities in the Lake Urmia region of northwest Iran, fromthe Pottery Neolithic period on (Chataigner et al. 2010:
386; Niknami, Amirkhiz, and Glascock 2010; Chataigner
and Gratuze 2013: 17). Significantly, these communities
procured obsidian from sources in the Lake Van region
as well (Voigt 1983; Chataigner et al. 2010: 386–87), thus
bridging the two separate obsidian distribution provinces. We do not claim that elements of the ShomutepeShulaveri culture were introduced by communities of theLake Urmia region. It is likely that future research would
reveal more possible links. With the present state of ourknowledge, we suggest that Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture
emerged in the context of cultural contacts with otherregions, which, although sparse, cannot be ignored.

Conclusion
The extension of excavation areas in the 2013 season
produced extensive data on one of the earliest food-producing economies in the southern Caucasus. Abundantartifactual remains helped to define the material culture
with greater precision, attesting to a series of distinct cultural features differing from those of classic ShomutepeShulaveri culture. This discovery indicates that thesechanges occurred via indigenous evolution rather than(solely) through foreign import. The development inhouse plans is particularly important, as it suggests interesting socioeconomic changes in these societies. The
repetitive occurrence of the “snowman-shaped,” tworoom buildings, which have a similar architectural form,
size, and spatial organization, indicates the existence ofa solid architectural tradition followed by the Neolithic
inhabitants at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe. This tradition differsfrom that at later settlements like Göytepe, where several
round buildings connected with curvilinear wing walls
formed circular dwelling compounds. These differences
are further elucidated through extensive excavations
and comparisons with the architecture of other early
Neolithic settlements (e.g., Badalyan et al. 2010). These
parameters may well serve as key features for identifying cultural changes that occurred during this very earlystage of Neolithization in the region.

This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=bullamerschoorie.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.

26

NISHIAKI ET AL.

The extended archaeological records from Hacı
Elamxanlı Tepe enabled regional comparisons in various aspects. The architecture, the nature of flaked andground-stone artifacts and bone tools, and the existenceof imported ceramics also indicate links with foreign
regions to the south, especially the eastern wing of the
Fertile Crescent. The process of development of the

BASOR 374

Shomutepe-Shulaveri culture has not been investigatedin detail, mainly owing to the lack of sufficient data on
local preceding settlements. The evidence presented inthis article suggests the importance of regional contacts
at the dawn of the emergence of food-producing societies
in the southern Caucasus.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Dr. Maria Ragimova, director of theInstitute of Archaeology and Ethnography, National Academyof Sciences of Azerbaijan, for permitting us to conduct excavations at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe. We would also like to thankthe members of this project, particularly Kazuya Shimogama,

Fuad Huseinov, Hiroto Nakata, and Ajhdal Bazadeh, who supported and helped us when required during fieldwork. Financial support for this research was provided by grants from theJapan Society for the Promotion of Sciences (nos. 24251014 and26770265).

References
Abibullayev, A. O.
1959
Археологические Pаскопки в Кюльтепе. Baku:
National Academy of Science.
Akkermans, P. M. M. G., and Schwartz, G. M.
2003
The Archaeology of Syria: From Complex HunterGatherers to Early Urban Societies (c. 16,000–300 bc).
Cambridge World Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arimura, M.; Badalyan, R.; Gasparyan, B. S.; and Chataigner, C.
2010
Current Neolithic Research in Armenia. Neo-Lithics 1/10: 77–85.
Arimura, M.; Chataigner, C.; and Gasparyan, B.
2009
Kmlo 2: An Early Holocene Site in Armenia. NeoLithics 2/09: 17–19.
Badalyan, R. S.; Chataigner, C.; and Kohl, P.
2004
Trans-Caucasian Obsidian: The Exploitation of the
Sources and Their Distribution. Pp. 437–65 in A View
from the Highlands: Archaeological Studies in Honourof Charles Burney, ed. A. Sagona. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 12. Leuven: Peeters.
Badalyan, R. S.; Harutyunyan, A. A.; Chataigner, C.; Le
Mort, F.; Chabot, J.; Brochier, J. E.; Balasescu, 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. S.; Lombard P.; Avetisyan, P.; Chataigner, C.;
Chabot, J.; Vila, E.; Hovsepyan, R.; Willcox, G.;
and Pressin, H.
2007
New Data on the Late Prehistory of the Southern
Caucasus: The Excavations at Aratashen (Armenia); Preliminary Report. Pp. 37–61 in Les culturesdu Caucase (VIe–IIIe millénaires avant notre ère):Leurs relations avec le Proche-Orient, ed. B. Lyonnet.
Paris: CNRS.
Banning, E. B.
2011
Houses, Households, and Changing Society in the
Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic of the Southern Levant. Paléorient 36 (1): 49–87.

Chataigner, C.
1995
La Transcaucasie au néolithique et au chalcolithique.
BAR International Series 624. Oxford: Tempus
Reparatum.
Chataigner, C.; Avetisyan, P.; Palumbi, G.; and Uerpmann, H.-P.
2010
Godedzor, a Late Ubaid-Related Site in the Southern
Caucasus. Pp. 381–98 in Beyond the Ubaid—Transformation and Integration in the Late PrehistoricSocieties of the Middle East, ed. R. A. Carter and G.
Philip. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the Universityof Chicago.
Chataigner, C.; Gasparyan, B.; Montoya, C.; Arimura, M.; Melikyan, V.; Liagre, J.; Petrosyan, A.; Ghukasyan, R.;
Colonge, D.; Fourloubey, C.; Arakelyan, D.; Astruc, L.; Nahapetyan, S.; Hovsepyan, R.; Bala­
sescu, A.; Tome, C.; and Radu, V.
2012
From the Late Upper Paleolithic to the Neolithic in
Northwestern Armenia: Preliminary Results. Pp.
37–43 in The Archaeology of Armenia in a Regional
Context: Proceedings of the International Conference
Dedicated to the 50th Anniversary of the Instituteof Archaeology and Ethnography Held on September 15–17, 2009 in Yerevan, ed. P. Avetisyan. Yerevan: National Academy of Sciences of Armenia;­Gitutyun.
Chataigner, C., and Gratuze, B.
2013
New Data on the Exploitation of Obsidian in theSouthern Caucasus (Armenia, Georgia) and Eastern Turkey, Part 2: Obsidian Procurement from theUpper Palaeolithic to the Late Bronze Age. Archaeometry 56: 48–69.
Copeland, L.
1996
The Flint and Obsidian Industries. Pp. 285–338 in
Tell Sabi Abyad, the Late Neolithic Settlement: Report on the Excavations of the University of Amsterdam (1988) and the National Museum of Antiquities
Leiden (1991–1993) in Syria, Vol. 2, ed. P. M. M. G.
Akkermans. Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 76. Istan-This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=bullamerschoorie.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.

2015

THE 2013 EXCAVATIONS AT HACI ELAMXANLI TEPE, AZERBAIJAN

bul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Institut
te Istanbul.
Garfinkel, Y.
2006
The Social Organization at Neolithic Shaʿar Hagolan: The Nuclear Family, the Extended Family andthe Community. Pp. 103–11 in Domesticating Space:
Construction, Community, and Cosmology in the Late
Prehistoric Near East, ed. E. B. Banning and M. Chazan. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 12. Berlin: Ex oriente.
Guliyev, F., and Nishiaki, Y.
2012
Excavations at the Neolithic Settlement of Göytepe,
the Middle Kura Valley, Azerbaijan, 2008–2009. Pp.
71–84 in Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East,
12 April–16 April 2010, the British Museum and
UCL, London, Vol. 3: Fieldwork & Recent Research—
Posters, ed. R. Matthews and J. Curtis. Wiesbaden:­Harrassowitz.
2014
Excavations at the Neolithic Settlement of Göytepe,
the Middle Kura Valley, Azerbaijan, 2010–2011. Pp.
3–16 in Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 30
April–4 May 2012, University of Warsaw, Vol. 2: Fieldwork and Progress Reports—Posters, ed. P. Bieliński, M.
Gawlikowski, R. Koliński, D. Ławecka, A. Sołtysiak,
and Z. Wygnańska. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Hamon, C.
2008
From Neolithic to Chalcolithic in the Southern
Caucasus: Economy and Macrolithic Implementsfrom Shulaveri-Shomu Sites of Kwemo-Kartli(Georgia). Paléorient 34 (2): 85–135.
2012
Macrolithic Tools from Neolithic and Chalcolithic
Sites in the Southern Caucasus: Mentesh Tepe andthe Mil Plain Sites. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus
Iran und Turan 44: 163–69.
Hansen, S., and Mirtskhulava, G.
2012
The Neolithic Settlement of Aruchlo: Report on
the Excavations in 2009–2011. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 44: 58–86.
Hansen, S.; Mirtskhulava, G.; and Bastert-Lamprichs, K.
2007
Aruchlo: A Neolithic Settlement Mound in the
Caucasus. Neo-Lithics 1/07: 13–19.
Helmer, D.; Gourichon, L.; and Vila, E.
2007
The Development of the Exploitation of Products
from Capra and Ovis (Meat, Milk and Fleece) fromthe PPNB to the Early Bronze in the Northern Near
East (8700 to 2000 bc cal). Anthropozoologica 42(2): 41–69.
Helwing, B., and Aliyev, T.
2012
Fieldwork in the Mil Plain: The 2010–2011 Expedition. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und
Turan 44: 4–16.
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 Settlementsof Aratashen and Aknashen. Vegetation History andArchaeobotany 17 (1S): S63–S67.

27

Joannin, S.; Ali, A. A.; Ollivier, V.; Roiron, P.; Peyron, O.; Chevaux, S.; Nahapetyan, S.; Tozalakyan, P.; Karakhanyan, A.; and Chataigner, C.
2013
Vegetation, Fire and Climate History of the Lesser
Caucasus: A New Holocene Record from Zarishat Fen(Armenia). Journal of Quaternary Science 29: 70–82.
Kadowaki, S.
2012
A Household Perspective towards the Pre-Pottery
Neolithic to Late Neolithic Cultural Transformation in the Southern Levant. Orient 47: 3–28.
2014
Groundstones and Grinding Technology. Pp.
259–85 in The Sands of Time: The Desert Neolithic
Settlement at Ayn Abū Nukhayla, ed. D. O. Henryand J. E. Beaver. Bibliotheca neolithica Asiae meridionalis et occidentalis. Berlin: Ex oriente.
Kadowaki, S.; Guliyev, F.; and Nishiaki, Y.
In press Chipped Stone Technology of the Earliest Agricultural
Village in the Southern Caucasus: Hacı Elamxanlı
Tepe (the Beginning of the 6th Millennium bc). Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Vol. 2: Fieldwork andRecent Research. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Kadowaki, S.; Maher, L.; Portillo, M.; Albert, R. M.;
Akashi, C.; Guliyev, F.; and Nishiaki, Y.
2015
Geoarchaeological and Palaeobotanical Evidence
for Prehistoric Cereal Storage in the Southern Caucasus: The Neolithic Settlement of Göytepe (Mid
8th Millennium BP). Journal of Archaeological Science 53: 408–25.
Kiguradze, T.
1986
Neolithische Siedlungen von Kvemo-Kartli, Georgien. Materialien zur allgemeinen und vergleichenden Archäologie 29. Munich: Beck.
Korfmann, M.
1982
Tilkitepe: Die ersten Ansätze prähistorischer For­
schung in der östlichen Türkei. Istanbular Mitteil­
ungen 26. Tübingen: Wasmuth.
Korobkova, G. F.
1996
The Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Southern Caucasus. Pp. 57–90 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, Instituteof Archaeology, Warsaw University, 3rd–7th April
1995, ed. S. K. Kozłowski and H. G. K. Gebel. Studies
in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, andEnvironment 3. Berlin: Ex oriente.
Kozłowski, S. K., and Aurenche, O.
2005
Territories, Boundaries and Cultures in the Neolithic
Near East. BAR International Series 1362. Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Lyonnet, B., and Guliyev, F.
2012Part III: Mentesh Tepe. Archäologische Mitteilungen
aus Iran und Turan 44: 86–121.
Lyonnet, B.; Guliyev, F.; Helwing, B.; Aliyev, T.; Hansen, S.;
and Mirtskhulava, G.
2012
Ancient Kura 2010–2011: The First Two Seasonsof Joint Field Work in the Southern Caucasus.
Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 44.

This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=bullamerschoorie.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.

28

NISHIAKI ET AL.

Meshveliani, T.
2013
On Neolithic Origins in Western Georgia. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 41 (2):61–72.
Meshveliani, T.; Bar-Oz, G.; Bar-Yosef, O.; Belfer-Cohen, A.;
Boaretto, E.; Jakeli, N.; Koridze, I.; and Matske­
vich, Z.
2007
Mesolithic Hunters at Kotias Klde, Western Georgia: Preliminary Results. Paléorient 33 (2): 47–58.
Molist, M.; Anfruns, J.; Bofill, M.; Borrell, F.; Clop, X.; Cruells,
W.; Faura, J. M.; Ferrer, A.: Gómez, A.; Guerrero,E.; Saña, M.; Tornero, C.; Vicente, O.; and Buxó, R.
2013
Tell Halula (Euphrates Valley, Syria): New Data
from the Late Neolithic Settlement. Pp. 443–453
in Interpreting the Late Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia, ed. O. P. Nieuwenhuyse, R. Bernbeck,
P. M. M. G. Akkermans, and J. Rogasch. Papers on
Archaeology of the Leiden Museum of Antiquities,
Egyptology 9. Turnhout: Brepols.
Munchaev, R. M.
1982Энеолит Кавказа. Pp. 100–164 in Энеолит СССР,Археология СССР, ed. V. M. Masson and N. A.
Merpert. Moscow: Nauk.
Narimanov, I.
1987Культура древнейшево земледельческоскотоводческого населения Азербайджана
(эпоха энеолита VI–IV тыс. до н.э.). Baku: Elm.
Niknami, K. A.; Amirkhiz, A. C.; and Glascock, M. D.
2010
Provenance Studies of Chalcolithic Obsidian Artefacts from near Lake Urmia, Northwestern IranUsing WDXRF Analysis. Archaeometry 52: 19–30.
Nishiaki, Y.
1993
Anatolian Obsidian and the Neolithic Obsidian
Industries of North Syria: A Preliminary Review.
Pp. 120–40 in Essays on Anatolian Archaeology, ed.
T. Mikasa. Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture
Center in Japan 7. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Nishiaki, Y.; Azizi Kharanaghi, M. H.; and Abe, M.
2013
The Late Aceramic Neolithic Flaked Stone Assemblage from Tepe Rahmatabad, Fars, South-West
Iran. Iran 51: 1–15.

BASOR 374

Nishiaki, Y.; Guliyev, F.; and Kadowaki, S.
2015
Chronological Contexts of the Earliest Neolithic
in the Southern Caucasus: Radiocarbon Dates for
Göytepe and Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, West Azerbaijan. American Journal of Archaeology 119 (3):279–94.
Nishiaki, Y.; Guliyev, F; Kadowaki, S.; Arimatsu, Y.; Hayakawa,
Y.; Shimogama, K.; Miki, T.; Akashi, C.; Arai, S.;
and Salimbeyov, S.
In press Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe: Excavations of the Earliest
Pottery Neolithic Occupations on the Middle Kura,
Azerbaijan, 2012. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus
Iran und Turan 45.
Palumbi, G.
2007
A Preliminary Analysis on the Prehistoric Pottery
from Aratashen (Armenia). Pp. 63–76 in Les cultures du Caucase (VIe–IIIe millénaires avant notreère): Leurs relations avec le Proche-Orient, ed. B. Lyonnet. Paris: CNRS.
Spoor, R. H., and Collet, P.
1996
The Other Small Finds. Pp. 439–75 in Tell Sabi
Abyad, The Late Neolithic Settlement; Report on the
Excavations of the University of Amsterdam (1988)
and the National Museum of Antiquities Leiden(1991–1993) in Syria, Vol. 2, ed. P. M. M. G. Akkermans. Uitgaven van het Nederlands HistorischArchaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 76. Istanbul:
Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te
Istanbul.
Voigt, M. M.
1983
Hajji Firuz Tepe, Iran: The Neolithic Settlement.
Hasanlu Excavation Reports 1; University Museum
Monograph 50. Philadelphia: University Museum,
University of Pennsylvania.
Wright, K. I.
1992
A Classification System for Ground Stone Tools
from the Prehistoric Levant. Paléorient 18 (2): 53–
81.
1993
Early Holocene Ground Stone Assemblages in theLevant. Levant 25: 93–111.

This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=bullamerschoorie.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.