Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe: Excavations of the earliest Pottery Neolithic
occupations on the Middle Kura, Azerbaijan, 2012
By Yoshihiro Nishiaki, Farhad Guliyev, Seiji Kadowaki, Yui Arimatsu, Yuichi Hayakawa, Kazuya Shimogama,
Takehiro Miki, Chie Akashi, Saiji Arai and Shahin Salimbeyov
Schlagwörter:
Keywords:
˚º7[*-ß* æº@-/:Südkaukasien, Obermesopotamien, Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, Neolithikum, bemalte Keramik,
trapezoide Geschoßspitzen
Southern Caucasus, Upper Mesopotamia, Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, Neolithization, painted pottery,trapeze-arrowheadˇ(*+C*%Bß* æº@-/: 2IBßØ ˚/-Œ/H, 6*-*(B/' 8*æ@?@%/CŁ', Q/[Ł 3º/Cı/BºŁ V*?*,B*@ºŁ%ŁH/!Ł', (/æ?ŁæB/' Œ*(/CŁŒ/, %(/?*!Ł*-Ł+Bß* B/Œ@B*[BŁŒŁ æ%(*ºIntroduction
In order to understand the origin and developmentsof Neolithic farming communities in the southern
Caucasus, research of the S̆omutepe or S̆omutepeS̆ulaveri culture is essential. This Pottery Neolithic
entity is represented by numerous mound sites located primarily in the Middle Kura Valley and is
known as the region’s oldest Neolithic entity since
its initial discovery in the 1960s.1 Although a few
archaeological sites reportedly date from an earlier
Neolithic or Mesolithic period, none have been
properly documented and published using modern
standards.2 Well-documented earlier Neolithic sites
do exist in the Black Sea basin to the west.3 However, they are distributed rather far from the Middle
Kura and their relationship with the Neolithic entities of concern here remains undemonstrated. Accordingly, the S̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri culture is regarded
as the oldest Neolithic entity with the best evidence
to date of an economy based on food production.
Research of its origin directly contributes to clarifying
the origin of Neolithic farming communities in the region.
The Azerbaijan-Japan joint archaeological mission to the Tovuz region, Middle Kura, aims to shed
new light on this issue through intensive fieldworkat related archaeological sites (Fig. 1). The main focus thus far has been the excavation of Göytepe,
one of the largest S̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri settlements in
the region.4 At the same time, efforts have also focused on locating Neolithic sites predating the S̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri sites. During the 2011 survey in
the Göytepe vicinity, one such possible site was discovered. This site is Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, situated approximately 1 km northwest of Göytepe (Figs. 2–4).
1
˝/(ŁC/B@- 1987.
2
Akhundov 2004.
3

Korobkova 1996; Kiguradze/Menabde 2004.

4 Guliyev et al. 2010; Guliyev/Nishiaki 2012a; Guliyev/Nishiaki

2012b.

Our intensive surface investigation yielded abundant chipped obsidian and flint artifacts dating to
the Neolithic but very few pottery sherds. Moreover,
the techno-typological features of the lithics suggested an age earlier than the S̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri
phase. In order to evaluate this estimate, the firstseason of excavation was carried out between Julyand August of 2012. What follows below is a summary of the results of this campaign, which show
this new Neolithic site’s significance to our understanding the origin of the S̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri culture in the Middle Kura.
(Y. N i s h i a k i and F. G u l i y e v)

Geographical setting
The study area is located on the northern side of
the Lesser Caucasus, where many alluvial fans areformed along the mountain foothills by rivers draining northward from the mountains (Fig. 3). The
edges of alluvial fans are cut off by the main courseof the Kura River, which drains eastward and terminates at the Caspian Sea. The area’s climate is warmand humid today, with annual mean precipitationof 300 mm; the monthly mean temperature in winter is %2.3–6.5 $ C and in summer ranges between
19.5–31.7 $ C.5 The modern climatic type is supposed to be BSk (cold arid steppe) to Cfa (generally
warm, with very humid and hot summers) following
Köppen’s classification.6 Vegetation cover in thearea is characterized by steppe, and the dominantland use involves agriculture and uncultivated meadows with great availability of ground and riverwater on the alluvial fans.
The mound of Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe comprises
an oval form measuring ca. 60 # 80 m in diameter,with a height of 1.5 m relative to the surrounding

5
Data at Ganja, World Meteorological Information, 2013.
6

Kottek et al. 2006.

2

Nishiaki et al.

Fig. 1The Middle Kura Valley.
Map showing thelocation of Hacı
Elamxanlı Tepe andrelated Neolithic sites

plain (Figs. 4; 6). The mound’s location near Qovlar
village, ca. 1.1 km NNW from Göytepe, is in a marginal area between two main alluvial fans formedby the Zayam River to the east and the Asrik Riverto the west (Fig. 3). Although the Asrik River’s modern channel has less discharge with an upstream
catchment area of 146 km2 from the fan’s apex, thedischarge could have been much more extensive in
the Pleistocene judging from the particle size androck type of sediments in the modern channel andterrace cover along the Asrik River. The long axisof gravels in the Asrik River is predominantly 10–
20 cm (up to 55 cm at a sampling point near Hacı
Elamxanlı Tepe), and the varied rock type of thesegravels includes andesite, carbonate rocks and pyroclastic flow deposits. These are comparable tothose in the Tovuz River located farther west. Therefore, discharge from the Asrik River has likely been
affected by inflow from the Tovuz River catchment.
Abandonment of the Asrik River from this catchment most likely occurred prior to the Last Glacial
Maximum (hereafter LGM), perhaps in MIS 3–4 orearlier. Based on this, coarse gravels up to 15 cm

long found in surficial sediments around Göytepe
were probably transported from either the Tovuz or
Zayam Rivers.
Several fluvial terraces have developed along
the Asrik and Tovuz Rivers (Fig. 5). The relative
height of the uppermost terrace from the modernriverbed along the Asrik River is approximately
20 m at an elevation of ca. 400 m a.s.l., whereas theterrace along the Tovuz River is 60 m with a maximum valley width of 1,000 m. Such a deep incision
along the Tovuz River may have occurred during
the Pleistocene following abundant alluvial filling
events in the glacial periods. Clear terraces are present at about 4 m and 20 m higher than the modern riverbed, which comprises several alternating
layers of gravels and sandy to muddy sediments.
The modern riverbed is being impaired by gravel
quarrying, probably causing recent incisions a few
meters deep into the modern riverbed.
In the late Pleistocene, rivers on the alluvial
fans around Qovlar should have been sufficiently
active to transport coarse sediments from theirmountain catchments where sediment supply from

3

Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe 2012

Fig. 2Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.
General view, looking
northwest

slopes may have been greater under glacial or periglacial environments than they are today. After the
LGM about 20 ka (MIS 2), several incision eventsoccurred.7 These events are presumed to havepartly coincided with the lowering of the CaspianSea. Alluvial infilling could have also occurred incolder periods and the 20 m high terrace in the Tovuz River probably filled in the Younger Dryas at
about 13–12 ka.8 The 20 m high terrace is also observed in the Zayam River east of Hacı Elamxanlı
Tepe. The 4 m high terrace in the Tovuz River formedin the Holocene, possibly around 6–2 ka.9
The 60 m deep Tovuz River valley suggeststhat the region around Qovlar was subject to extensive geological incisions at least after the late Pleistocene. This was caused by either the Caspian Sea
level fluctuations, tectonic displacement by faults
running along the Kura River, or climatic changes.
The longitudinal profile of the Tovuz River shows aprominent knickzone at ca. 700–1300 m a.s.l. andthe incision in the downstream alluvial reach with astraight profile should be associated with the propagation of the knickzone or knickpoints.
7
Ollivier et al. 2011; Ollivier et al. 2012.
8
Ollivier et al. 2011.
9

Ollivier et al. 2011.

Fig. 3
Study area in the
Middle Kura Valley.
Background is an ALOS
AVNIR-2 satellite image

4

Nishiaki et al.
3
Fig. 4Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe. Topographic map showing the geographic relationship between Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe and Göytepe

Along with the long-term incision trend of surrounding rivers in the Holocene, availability ofwater for humans on the alluvial fans may havechanged. The rapid incision forming the 20 m terrace along the Tovuz and Zayam Rivers may haveaffected the water table on alluvial fans. This baselevel decrease could have thus been linked to a locational shift of surficial springs on the fans. Moreover, an associated decrease in surface water discharge from the upstream mountains could haveoccurred.
(Y. H a y a k a w a)2012 Excavation season
In order to record the site’s entire occupational history by defining architectural levels, an initial excavation area at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe was opened
at Square M10 (5 # 5 m) encompassing the highest
part of the mound (Figs. 6; 7). For this purpose, ourexcavations recorded the stratigraphic positions ofmajor architectural remains as key features for defining stratigraphic units. This includes deposits andfeatures related to the construction, use, and abandonment of the architectural remains. To organize
the stratigraphic relationships of various architectural remains and archaeological deposits, we identified spatial units as ‘‘context,’’ which corresponds
to a depositional unit (e.g., a mudbrick wall, building floor, pit fill, or cluster of artifacts) or an excavation unit (e.g., each excavation grid made on abuilding floor for recording spatial distribution offloor deposits). Using contexts as a unit of stratigraphic analysis, we grouped them by building levelbased on their stratigraphic relationship with majorarchitectural features. Artifacts, ecofacts, and othersamples were primarily collected by contexts. In addition, dry sieving was conducted to recover small
remains for 50% of the deposits from Neolithic levels, while we sieved 100% of the deposits withhigh artifact density.
Excavations at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe during the2012 season reached the depth of approximately
150 cm from the present surface but did not reach3
Fig. 5The Tovuz River. – 1 View looking downstream (northwest). The
big pipe on the left is for irrigation, which delivers water from west
to east over the Tovuz (and terminates at the Asrik). Next to thepipe, a quarry plant is shown on the opposite (left) side of theriver; – 2 Cross profile of the Tovuz River (view upstream). Terraces at 60 m, 20 m and 4 m height are shown

Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe 20125

virgin soil. As a preliminary result of this stratigraphic examination, four building levels (Levels 1–
4 from the top) were defined for the Neolithic deposits. The following descriptions of these levels refer to the numerical names of contexts, such as 7,
12, and 60, indicating particular archaeological features and deposits.
Level 1The uppermost building level identified in Square
M10 consists of a curvilinear mudbrick wall (9)forming a half circle ca. 2.7 m in diameter (Fig. 8).
The walled space opens to the east. On its westernside another curvilinear wall (50) is attached, extending into the western section wall of the excavation square. The base of Wall 50 (ca. 406.25 m a.s.l.)defines the stratigraphic bottom of Level 1. The archaeological deposits between the construction andabandonment events of Wall 50 are primarily assigned to this level, which stratigraphically corresponds to the upper floor associated with Wall 9.
Although Walls 9 and 50 were preserved tothe height of only 15–20 cm in Level 1, associatedarchaeological deposits yielded two clusters of artifacts that indicate occupational surfaces. One ofthese was found in brown sediments (42) at theeastern side of Wall 9. This was a cache of slingstones (34 and 40), which also included an obsidian

Fig. 6
Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.
Grid indicating Square
M10 (5 # 5 m) that was
excavated in 2012

Fig. 7
Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.
An overview of Square
M10 from the northwest. Göytepe is seenamong the trees to thefar right

6

Nishiaki et al.

Fig. 8Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.
Architectural features of
Neolithic Level 1 in
Square M10

core, animal bones, and a single clay sling missile,concentrated near the wall (Fig. 9). Another artifact
cluster was recovered in ashy deposits in the southern outdoor area near Wall 9, consisting of obsidian
and flint artifacts (43).
In terms of spatial use, Level 1 of Square
M10 is generally characterized by contrasting natures of the deposit between the eastern and western areas, bounded by Wall 9. The main deposit in
the eastern area comprises brown sediments with

Fig. 10Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe. Architectural featuresof Neolithic Level 2 in Square M10

vegetal inclusions (7, 11, 42, 46, and 49), which
may have derived from collapsed mudbrick walls.
The western side was covered with ashy deposits(31, 32, 38, 44, 51, 52, and 54) containing a higher
density of refuse than the brown sediments in theeastern area.
Level 2

Fig. 9Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe. Cache of sling balls and other tools (40) next to Wall 9 in Neolithic Level 1This building level underlies Level 1 and is stratigraphically limited by the base of Wall 50 at the
top and by the bases of Walls 9 and 75 at the bottom (Fig. 10). More specifically, the beginning ofLevel 2 is defined by the construction of Wall 9, ahalf circular wall, and Wall 75, another curvilinear
wall extending to the west. A lower floor of Wall 9
corresponds to this level, although Wall 9 remained
standing until Level 1 when it was reoccupied (cf.
Figs. 8; 10). Wall 75 was constructed on the fill of alarge ash pit (>3 m) located in the northwesternpart of Square M10. Although the wall extends fromthe western section wall towards the east, the preserved wall portion does not connect to Wall 9,
leaving a ca. 1 m wide passage. The absolute elevation of the base of Wall 75 is ca. 405.75 m a.s.l.
at the western section wall and is 25 cm lower thanthe base of Wall 9 (ca. 406.00 m a.s.l.). The surface
where Wall 75 was constructed in the large ash pit
was either lower than the base of Wall 9 or the

7

Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe 2012

Fig. 11Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.
Mudbrick walls andoccupational surfacesof Neolithic Level 2 in
Square M10, looking
west. Note the contrasting nature ofdeposits on opposing
sides of Wall 9base of Wall 75 sank into loose ash deposits, despite some cobbles having been used as wall foundations. Wall 84 at the northern end of Square M10
is slightly curvilinear and preserved at the heightof only few centimeters. Its western extension wasprobably destroyed by the construction of a large
ash pit.
The occupational surface of Level 2 in Square
M10 is again characterized by the contrasting useof space between the eastern and western areas
bounded by Wall 9 (Fig. 11). The eastern area ispartially surrounded by Wall 9; the occupationalsurface there was associated with a small hearth(17) and its adjacent distribution of artifacts (13and 47), including a perforated antler, handstone,
and an abrader. Except for these features, only asmall volume of refuse was recovered in the easternarea with brown sediments. In contrast, the westernarea is widely distributed with ash deposits, particularly inside the large pit (56, 58, 60, 63, 69, 70
and 91). This contained a great volume of refuse,including animal bones, chipped and ground stones,
charred botanical remains, burnt cobbles and clay
pieces, and some pottery sherds, which were often
recovered in clusters (57, 62, and 65). The recoveryof pottery sherds, particularly those with painted
decorations, is noteworthy given their overall rareoccurrence at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe (see below).
Although these remains were deposited in the large

ash pit that usually contained secondary refuse, thesieved materials include small remains, such as
abundant stone tool chips. In some contexts, these
indicate either the adjacency of activity areas or

Fig. 12Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.
Architectural featuresof Neolithic Level 3
in Square M10

8

Nishiaki et al.

Fig. 13
Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.
Architectural featuresof the upper part of
Neolithic Level 4
in Square M10

thorough cleaning of living space. The former scenario may be consistent with the recovery of twohearths immediately south of the large ash pit.
Level 3The beginning of Level 3 is primarily defined by occupational surfaces associated with two mudbrickFig. 14Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.
Room fill densely distributed with mudbricks,
which probably resulted
from the collapse ofWall 105, looking west

walls (82 and 83). Wall 83 stretches in an east-west
direction, attached to Wall 82 that forms a large circular room (probably >4 m in diameter) with an
opening to the north in the excavated area (Fig. 12).
A floor surrounded by a curvilinear Wall 82 consisted of ashy sediments, where some cobbles, artifacts, and animal bones were horizontally distributed. The floor likely represents the reoccupation ofa collapsed circular building (Wall 105 in Level 4)
because the floor is located above the room fillcontaining a large number of mudbricks that fellout of Wall 105. Therefore, Wall 82 may represent
the remaining part of the collapsed Wall 105 or an
additional construction on top of Wall 105 during
Level 3. At the southwestern corner of Square M10
is an area constrained by Wall 82 and 83. The fillof this room is ashy in the southern part, where asmall hearth was detected. This room also yielded
the only rim sherd (ca. 10 cm) found at the site thus
far. In addition, the recovery of a mudbrick at thenorthwestern corner of Square M10 indicates thepresence of another wall (97) in this level, although
it was disturbed by an ash pit constructed during
Level 2.
Level 4The main deposits of Level 4 include a building
floor (96 and 98) associated with Wall 105 and theoverlying room fill with a large number of mudbricks (89, 92, 94, and 95). Wall 105 occupies the

9Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe 2012

same location as Wall 82 in Level 3. Although Wall
82 may have been the upper extension of Wall
105 or an additional construction on top of Wall
105, the former is open at its northern part. The
outside of Wall 105 in Level 4 has not yet been
excavated.
The deposits inside Wall 105 are about 30–
40 cm thick and filled with numerous mudbricks.
Some of the bricks are lying side by side and somewhat parallel to the nearby wall, indicating thatthey collapsed from a stacked section used to constitute the upper portion of Wall 105 (Figs. 13; 14).
This idea is consistent with the fact that bricks are
more densely distributed and form taller piles near
the wall.
In any case, this apparent room fill not only
represents collapsed walls but other finds indicatethat it was likely used for other purposes. The mostnoteworthy find is a cluster of about 10 horn coresof goats in the middle of the room between mudbricks, ca. 15–25 cm above the floor (Fig. 15).
Although it is difficult to determine the meaning of
this deposit, the horn cores were likely laid intentionally side by side. Another cluster comprises
chipped obsidian and flint that continues into thesouthern section wall (93). Considering that it includes blades and flakes, this may have been acache of usable tools as opposed to a refuse dump.
Under the mudbrick scatter, we recovered an
occupation floor (96 and 98) that appears to haveretained clear traces of domestic activities (Fig. 16).
Although this activity area was only partly revealedin the excavation area, we collected artifacts andsediment samples by 1 # 1 m grids (nine grids intotal) to examine the spatial distribution of domestic refuse. This should help us gain insight into theuse of space by Neolithic residents at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.
Although detailed analyses of the excavatedsamples will be conducted in the future, field observations of the building floor suggest patterned useof the indoor space. First, the floor is characterized
by the presence of two hearths, each of which is
associated with an area containing ash and manycharcoal fragments. The northern ashy area wasdistributed with many stone artifacts, including grinding and pounding tools, a small chisel, chipped stone
flakes/blades, and a core. There was also a single
pottery sherd. In contrast, the density of artifacts
around the southern hearth is low, although another cluster of artifacts and/or debris may be located in the unexcavated area south of the hearth.
In the south, an obsidian core tablet was recovered
beside the wall.
Another interesting feature is a pit containing
a cache of sling balls and a chipped stone core
(99: Fig. 17). The pit was located between the walland northern hearth area. In addition to the pit,
there were two large animal bones and an elongated cobble (polisher?) with clear striations on
the surface. As these pieces were located near thewall, they may have been deposited as provisional
refuse for future use, similar to the tools stored in
the pit.

Fig. 15
Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.
Cluster of goat horncores (23 and 24) laid
among the mudbrickscatter inside Wall 105,
looking west

(S. K a d o w a k i, K. S h i m o g a m a
and S. Sa l i m b e y o v)

Fig. 16
Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.
Architectural features ofthe lower part of Neolithic Level 4 in Square
M10

10

Nishiaki et al.

Fig. 17
Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.
Cache of sling balls anda chipped stone core ina pit from which somepieces were alreadyremoved, looking east

Radiocarbon dating
Seven radiocarbon dates have been obtained forthe four Neolithic levels (Tab. 1; Fig. 18). All ofthese dates are based on charcoal remains collected by experienced archaeologists from proper
contexts such as fire hearths. An inconsistency is
noted for the two dates of Level 4 (IAAA-120698
and 120699), which seem to differ considerablyfrom one another. However, the 2-sigma range of
IAAA-120698 includes a possible timespan of 5969–
5955 cal. BCE, which is wholly bracketed within the
2-sigma range of the other date for Level 4, IAAA120699. Therefore, sample IAAA-120698 cannot necessarily be considered as anomalous. Keeping thisin mind, it is remarkable that all seven dates are
fairly concentrated in a short period of the firstquarter of the 6th millennium cal. BCE.
At the same time, they seem to comprise twogroups, roughly 6000–5900 cal. BC for Levels 4
and 3, and 5900–5800 cal. BC for Levels 2 and 1.
Interestingly, this is in accord with the stratigraphic observations presented above: Levels 4
and 3 shared the same basic architectural plan,
the latter having been built directly on the former(Figs. 12; 13). This is also the case for the relationship between Levels 2 and 1 (Figs. 8; 10). The
real change in architectural plan occurred only between Levels 3 and 2. The revealed sequence

could be divided into two phases as indicated byradiocarbon dates.
(Y. N i s h i a k i)

Material remains
Pottery
The pottery from Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe excavated in2012 consists of 21 sherds, including three pieces
from the surface and the topsoil deposits, probably dating to the Bronze Age or later. Pottery
sherds dating to the Neolithic period number 18
pieces. The rare occurrence of pottery sherds isstriking in comparison with both the large quantityof chipped stone artifacts from this site (see below) and the huge amount of pottery sherds recovered from the nearby Neolithic site of Göytepe.10
However, it should be noted that all four Neolithic
levels yielded pottery sherds. Accordingly, despite
the scarcity of pottery, the Neolithic levels of Hacı
Elamxanlı Tepe excavated to date belong to the
Pottery Neolithic.

10

Guliyev/Nishiaki 2012a; Guliyev/Nishiaki 2012b.

11

Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe 2012

Level

Context

Lab no.

Date bp

Cal BC (1 sigma)

Cal BC (2 sigma)

Level 1

HAJ2012 M10-54

IAAA-120693

7,000 ( 305974 calBC–5951 calBC (19.6%)
5917 calBC–5873 calBC (36.8%)5863 calBC–5846 calBC (11.9%)5985 calBC–5834 calBC (92.6%)
5826 calBC–5810 calBC (2.8%)

Level 2

HAJ2012 M10-48

IAAA-120694

6,960 ( 305890 calBC–5799 calBC (68.2%)

5971 calBC–5954 calBC (3.8%)5912 calBC–5752 calBC (91.6%)

Level 2

HAJ2012 M10-68

IAAA-120695

6,930 ( 305838 calBC–5755 calBC (68.2%)

5882 calBC–5733 calBC (95.4%)

Level 3

HAJ2012 M10-15

IAAA-120696

7,070 ( 30

6001 calBC–5974 calBC (28.0%)5952 calBC–5916 calBC (40.2%)6015 calBC–5893 calBC (95.4%)

Level 3

HAJ2012 M10-79

IAAA-120697

7,060 ( 305992 calBC–5970 calBC (20.6%)5955 calBC–5907 calBC (47.6%)6012 calBC–5886 calBC (95.4%)

Level 4

HAJ2012 M10-96H

IAAA-120698

7,080 ( 306003 calBC–5974 calBC (29.5%)
5951 calBC–5917 calBC (38.7%)6015 calBC–5895 calBC (95.4%)

Level 4

HAJ2012 M10-96I

IAAA-120699

6,950 ( 405885 calBC–5783 calBC (68.2%)

5969 calBC–5955 calBC (2.7%)
5907 calBC–5739 calBC (92.7%)

Tab. 1Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.
Radiocarbon dates for
the Neolithic levels
excavated in 2012

Technological characteristics
The Neolithic pottery of Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe ischaracterized by highly varied production techniques. While all of the sherds are from vessels madeusing coils or small slabs of clay, they exhibit great
variability in other technological features such as
the preparation of paste, surface treatment, decoration techniques, and firing method.
The Neolithic sherds are divided into four categories based on production technique. First, two
sherds are assigned to fine ware (Fig. 19). The
paste of this category contains characteristicallysmall grains of mica and occasionally small brownminerals with a diameter of 0.1–0.5 mm. The vessel
wall is relatively thin, less than 10 mm. The interior
surfaces are horizontally wet-smoothed (Fig. 19,2. 4).
As for the exterior surface, one of the two sherds isslipped after wet-smoothing, resulting in a brownishgray color (7.5YR4/1) of the surface (Fig. 19,1). The
grayish-brown (7.5YR5/2) exterior surface of theother specimen is treated by light burnishing(Fig. 19,3). Both of these sherds are well-fired anddo not retain any trace of secondary firing.
The second category refers to mineral tempered common ware, which contains brown or reddish-brown mineral inclusions about 0.5–1.0 mm
in diameter. Two sherds belong to this category.
The exterior surface is treated by light burnish,
while the interior surface is always wet-smoothed.
These sherds are also well-fired, exhibiting a graycore.
The third and fourth categories consist ofmineral tempered coarse ware and chaff temperedcoarse ware. The mineral tempered coarse ware
has plenty of black or reddish-black mineral inclusions with a diameter of 1.0–5.0 mm. The wall isrelatively thick. The surfaces are treated by careful

wet-smoothing or light burnishing. The exterior surface displays a grayish-brown color and the interior
surface is reddish-brown. Both categories often
show traces of secondary firing (Fig. 20,2–3). Only
one sherd contains a small amount of mica. The
mineral tempered coarse ware comprises the mostcommon pottery at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe. Yet thepaste and surface treatment techniques are fairly
variable, suggesting that this category could befurther divisible when a larger sample size is available next season.
Representing the second most common type,the chaff tempered coarse ware contains extensive
1.0–10.0 mm chaff inclusions, sometimes withgrains. The wall is relatively thick ('15 mm). The
exterior surface presents a dull brown or dull orange color and the interior is grayish-yellow-brownor dull yellow-orange in color (Fig. 20,1). This pottery type is also well-fired and a gray core is sometimes identified in the section. Surfaces are wellsmoothed at the early stage of drying.

Fig. 18
Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.
Calibrated radiocarbon
dates for the
Neolithic levels

12

Nishiaki et al.

Fig. 19
Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.
Neolithic painted
pottery. – 1, 3 Exterior
surfaces; – 2, 4 Interior
surfaces

Fig. 20
Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.
Neolithic pottery. –1 Chaff temperedcoarse ware; – 2–3 Mineral tempered coarse
ware; exterior (left) andinterior (right) surfaces

Morphological characteristics
The recovered pottery assemblage does not include
any complete vessels or fragments of the base andonly consists of body and rim sherds. Therefore, aprecise reconstruction of their vessel shape is difficult. More or less plausible reconstructions havebeen made for a few sherds only: the two sherds ofthe fine ware probably correspond to the shoulder(Fig. 21,1) and body part (Fig. 21,2) of small jars.
The largest sherd recovered this season is the chaff
tempered coarse ware, which would have been apart of deep bowl (Fig. 21,3).
Decoration is limited to painting that is applied only to the fine ware. Motifs are restricted
to geometric designs, for which a combination ofhorizontal, oblique, and zigzag lines show variability (Fig. 21,1–2). The colors of paint are black

13

Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe 2012

Fig. 21Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.
Neolithic pottery.
– 1–2 painted fineware; – 3 chaff tempered coarse ware

(Fig. 21,1; 10YR1.7/1) or dark reddish-brown(Fig. 21,2; 2.5YR3/3). It seems that geometric decorations were painted on the upper body and relatively broad horizontal lines were painted near thewidest part of the body of a small jar.
Archaeological context
Excavation contexts of the Neolithic pottery vary, including the ash deposit, pit, and ashy sediments on
the floor. In Level 2, both of the painted fine ware
sherds were discovered in the ash deposit (Fig. 10).
Furthermore, several sherds were recovered in acluster from the ashy sediments of the large pit in
the northwestern area in association with animalbones, charred botanical remains, and burnt clay.
The pottery of Level 3 includes the current assemblage’s largest sherd, which was a rim portion of
the chaff tempered coarse ware (Figs. 20,1; 21,3)
discovered this season in situ in the room fill neara small hearth (Fig. 12). Level 4 yielded a single
sherd of chaff tempered coarse ware, excavated in
the ashy area near the hearth on the building floor(Fig. 16).
The small sample size of sherds prevents us
from conducting a statistical comparison of the pottery by level. Nonetheless, we may note that thelower levels yielded only coarse wares, while all thefine and common wares were discovered in theupper two levels.

Discussion
The pottery assemblage excavated at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe is unique in the region and differs considerably from the well-known pottery assemblagesof the S̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri culture. First, the significantly rare occurrence of pottery at Hacı Elamxanlı
Tepe is remarkable. Second, the incidence of clearly
painted pottery also represents an important difference. A small amount of painted pottery does exist
at S̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri sites like Göytepe.11 However,the decoration is always very simple and does not
represent any recognizable motif. The existence of
painted pottery of Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe is indisputable and no comparable pottery has been reported
from S̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri sites or other Neolithic sites
in the region.12 The highly elaborated techno-stylistic features rather suggest its resemblance to pottery of remote regions, including Samarra pottery ofUpper Mesopotamia. Third, the technology of themineral tempered coarse ware is also different. The
common occurrence of mineral tempered coarse
ware at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe may be reminiscent ofa frequently noted type in the lowest levels of Göytepe.13 However, the mineral tempered coarse wareof Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe does not retain any relief
decoration, which is typical of S̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri
11
Guliyev/Nishiaki 2012a, 75.
12cf. Helwing/Aliyev 2012.
13

Guliyev/Nishiaki 2012a, 75.

14Tab. 2Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.
Frequency of raw
material types ofchipped stones

Nishiaki et al.

Obsidian

Red brown
flint

Green tuff

Red dacite/
rhyolite

Other volcanic

Unidentified(non obsidian)

Total

Topsoil(n ¼ 350)

74%

4%

4%

8%

4%

5%

100%

Level 1(n ¼ 794)

59%

14%

5%

11%

5%

6%

100%

Level 2(n ¼ 1987)

46%

38%

3%

7%

1%

6%

100%

Level 3(n ¼ 769)

54%

17%

6%

12%

4%

7%

100%

Level 4(n ¼ 535)

57%

14%

1%

22%

5%

1%

100%

Total

53%

24%

4%

10%

3%

5%

100%

pottery.14 Moreover, production techniques such as
the selection of mineral inclusions and surface treatment differ significantly between the mineral tempered coarse wares of Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe and thetypical S̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri pottery of Göytepe.
In addition to the radiocarbon dates, these differences suggest that the finds at Hacı Elamxanlı
Tepe represent a Neolithic pottery assemblage previously unknown in the Middle Kura region, predating the S̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri phase of the Pottery Neolithic period. It might even represent one of theoldest Neolithic pottery assemblages in the southern
Caucasus. Although we are not yet able to specify
the origin of this pottery assemblage, we aim to define how pottery manufacturing started in the region.
Important issues also worthy of future investigation
include whether the first pottery was locally made orimported and what social and economic roles theoldest pottery played in the local community.
(Y. A r i m a t s u)
Stone artifacts
The first season of excavation in Square M10 ofHacı Elamxanlı Tepe yielded nearly 4,500 chippedstone artifacts. We sieved 50% of the Neolithic deposits to collect small remains, while all deposits
with high artifact densities were sieved. The numberof artifacts collected from Level 2 (ca. 2,000 pieces)is two to three times larger than other levels(Tab. 2) due in part to a high density of artifacts inthe pit fills (see above). The overall volume of theLevel 2 deposits was also increased by large pitsthat were dug into underlying levels.
Obsidian is the predominant raw material ofchipped stones from Hacı Elamxanlı, accounting forca. 45–60% (Tab. 2) of artifacts. However, the unsieved topsoil may have resulted in a collection
14 Chataigner 1995, 91–96, 112–117; Hansen/Mirtskhulava 2012,

77–82.

biased towards obsidian, since this rock type is more
visible than others in the field. Potential sources ofobsidian found at this site are found in the Lesser
Caucasus Mountains; our raw material sourcing analysis currently underway should allow us to identify
more specific source locations.
Non-obsidian raw materials include red-brown
flint, red dacite/rhyolite, green tuff, and other volcanic rocks. Red-brown flint is fine-grained and morethan 10% of debitage (including unretouched flakes/
blades, chips, and debris) retain cortex, the size of
which is too small to indicate the nature or sourcesof parent rocks. Several flint outcrops are known in
the upper portion of the Aghstafa River,15 ca. 40–
60 km from Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, although the limestone area in the lower Aghstafa Valley may haveother sources. Most of the other raw materials are
locally available within a range of 10 km. Red dacite/
rhyolite and other volcanic artifacts show weatheredangular surfaces, indicating their derivation from outcrops. Green tuff occurs locally as fluvial cobbles.
Among these varied raw materials, the knapping of obsidian is distinct in several techno-typological aspects. For example, the proportion of retouched tools is quite high in obsidian assemblages(Tab. 3), suggesting a greater degree of use andcuration of the exotic raw material. Burins are themost frequent tool type (Fig. 22,8–9), accounting
for ca. 30%; their frequency is almost equal tospalls (Tab. 4). These are followed in frequency byretouched and nibbled pieces, then splintered anddenticulated pieces. Among others, trapezes form a
distinct tool type (Fig. 22,1–3) that are made on
bladelets segmented either by snapping or oblique
truncation. Snapped ends are sometimes associatedwith slightly flat retouch on the dorsal surface. These
retouch methods are observable on some bladeletsegments (that are not exactly trapezoidal) recovered
15

Gasparyan 2010.

15

Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe 2012

Topsoil

Obsidian

Red brown
flint

Green tuff

Red dacite/
rhyoliten% bylevelsn% bylevelsn% bylevelsn% bylevelsn% bylevelsn% bylevelsn% bylevelsRetouched
tools

92

35%

0

0%

2

14%

3

10%

2

13%

0

0%

99

28%

Debitage

163

63%

15

100%

11

79%

26

90%

12

80%

16

94%

243

69%

5

2%

0

0%

1

7%

0

0%

1

7%

1

6%

8

2%

Cores

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4Wilke 1996.

Unidentified(non obsidian)

Total

Total

260

100%

15

100%

14

100%

29

100%

15

100%

17

100%

350

100%

Retouched
tools

206

44%

10

9%

2

5%

3

3%

0

0%

10

22%

231

29%

Debitage

260

55%

99

88%

35

92%

88

97%

36

97%

35

76%

553

70%

Cores

3

1%

4

4%

1

3%

0

0%

1

3%

1

2%

10

1%

Total

469

100%

113

100%

38

100%

91

100%

37

100%

46

100%

794

100%

Retouched
tools

320

35%

14

2%

7

13%

8

6%

0

0%

13

11%

362

18%

Debitage

585

64%

710

95%

46

87%

124

92%

19

100%

102

88%

1586

80%

Cores

9

1%

26

3%

0

0%

3

2%

0

0%

1

1%

39

2%

Total

914

100%

750

100%

53

100%

135

100%

19

100%

116

100%

1987

100%

Retouched
tools

156

38%

1

1%

6

13%

6

6%

2

6%

1

2%

172

22%

Debitage

259

62%

124

95%

38

83%

86

92%

30

94%

45

88%

582

76%

Cores

1

0%

6

5%

2

4%

1

1%

0

0%

5

10%

15

2%

Total

416

100%

131

100%

46

100%

93

100%

32

100%

51

100%

769

100%

Retouched
tools

116

38%

2

3%

1

17%

12

10%

2

8%

0

0%

133

25%

Debitage

187

61%

66

90%

4

67%

102

88%

23

88%

5

71%

387

72%

Cores

4

1%

5

7%

1

17%

2

2%

1

4%

2

29%

15

3%

Total

307

100%

73

100%

6

100%

116

100%

26

100%

7

100%

535

100%

together with trapezes in the same contexts or inclose proximity. We identified these retouched bladelet segments as unfinished trapezes (Fig. 22,5–7).
Most obsidian tools are made on blades or
bladelets that show unidirectional dorsal flaking
scars. The evidence for on-site obsidian-blade production is scarce but indicated by a few blade coresthat were subsequently exploited for expedient flake
removal (Fig. 22,14). On the other hand, the manufacture of obsidian bladelets is more evident fromseveral prismatic bladelet cores (Fig. 22,11–12) andmore than two dozen platform tablets with bladeletscars. The bladelet cores and platform tablets often
show wide working surfaces extending around thecircumference of the striking platform, somewhat
like ‘‘bullet-shaped cores.’’16
16

Other volcanic

In comparison with obsidian, non-obsidian
raw materials show much lower percentages of retouched tools and different proportions of tooltypes (Tabs. 3; 4). For example, sickle elements aremainly produced on red-brown flint, green tuff, andunidentified non-obsidian materials (Fig. 23),
although these artifacts may be underrepresented
in obsidian due to the difficulty of recognition. Scrapers and retouched flakes account for large proportions of red dacite/rhyolite and other volcanic rocks(Fig. 22,10). Notably, some trapezes and burins are
made of red-brown flint in addition to obsidian(Fig. 22,4).
The blade/bladelet form occurs much lessfrequently in non-obsidian debitage and cores(Fig. 22,13) and their forms are not as regular as
obsidian artifacts. The proportions of blades/bladelets are greater in red-brown flint and green tuff
than red dacite/rhyolite or other volcanic rocks andTab. 3Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.
Frequency of generalclasses of chippedstones by raw material
types

16

Nishiaki et al.

Fig. 22
Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.
Sickle elements.
– 1 red brown flint;– 3 green tuff; – 4 obsidian; – 2, 5 unidentified non-obsidian raw
material (2 is coatedwith bitumen remains,
5 is burnt)

Trapezes

Tab. 4Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.
Frequency of retouched
tools from Levels 1–4
by raw material types

Obsidian(n ¼ 798)

Red brown
flint(n ¼ 27)

Green tuff
(n ¼ 16)

Red dacite/
rhyolite(n ¼ 29)

Other
volcanic(n ¼ 4)

Unidentified(nonobsidian)(n ¼ 24)

Total(n ¼ 898)

1.9%

7.4%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1.9%

Unfinished trapezes

2.8%

3.7%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

2.6%

Sickle elements

0.8%

37.0%

43.8%

0.0%

0.0%

45.8%

3.8%

Borers

1.3%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1.1%

Scrapers

0.9%

0.0%

18.8%

20.7%

25.0%

8.3%

2.1%

Denticulated blades

3.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

2.7%

Denticulated flakes

0.6%

3.7%

0.0%

6.9%

25.0%

4.2%

1.1%

Notched blades

1.4%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1.2%

Notched flakes

0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

6.9%

0.0%

0.0%

0.3%

Retouched blades

11.4%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

10.1%

Retouched flakes

3.1%

18.5%

25.0%

62.1%

50.0%

4.2%

6.1%

Nibbled blades

5.3%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

4.7%

Nibbled flakes

0.6%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

4.2%

0.7%

Burins

29.1%

25.9%

0.0%

3.4%

0.0%

12.5%

27.1%

Tool spalls

32.1%

3.7%

12.5%

0.0%

0.0%

12.5%

29.2%

Splintered pieces

4.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

4.2%

3.8%

Truncations

1.3%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

4.2%

1.2%

Others

0.4%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.3%

Total

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

the blades/bladelets of the former raw materials areoften made into sickle elements, for which flakes
are also used as blanks.

Among the techno-typological patterns described above, a potential chronological marker isthe smaller proportion of obsidian (ca. 45–60%) at
Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe than sites of the S̆omutepe-

17

Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe 2012

Fig. 23
Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.
Chipped stone artifacts.
– 1–4 trapezes; – 5–7
unfinished trapezes;– 8–9 burins; –10 thick round scraper;– 11–13 bladeletcores; – 14 blade corere-used for flake production (1–3, 5–9, 11,
12, and 14 obsidian; 4
and 13 red brown flint;
10 red dacite/rhyolite)S̆ulaveri culture (84–87%).17 In this sense, it would
be worthwhile to examine how the flint industry atHacı Elamxanlı Tepe compares with flint-dominant
assemblages (both Aceramic and Late Neolithic) in
the southwestern foothills of the Greater Caucasus,such as at Darkvety Layer IV and the Nagutni typesites.18
Another more significant feature of the Hacı
Elamxanlı Tepe lithics is the abundance of trapezes
based on the production of bladelets from both obsidian and flint. Although these techno-typologicalelements are not absent in the Göytepe and otherS̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri assemblages,19 they are manifest more clearly at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe. Cultural
historical roots of trapezes and bladelets may be
traced back to ‘‘Mesolithic’’ assemblages in the
Caucasus,20 though comparable materials that are
chronologically and geographically closest to Hacı
17
Korobkova 1996, 74.
18
Kiguradze/Menabde 2004, 353–354.
19
Kiguradze/Menabde 2004; Hansen et al. 2006, 26.
20

Kozlowski 1996.

Elamxanlı Tepe can be found in some Aceramic
Neolithic assemblages in the western part of theSouthern Caucasus, such as Anaseuli I and Darkvety Layer IV.21 The resemblance to these Aceramic
Neolithic assemblages is consistent with the radiocarbon dates of Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe preceding Göytepe and also with the rare occurrence of pottery
sherds from Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.
From a wider geographic perspective, it is also
notable that similar trapezes are included in early
Late Neolithic (or Pottery Neolithic) assemblages innorthern Mesopotamia, such as at Kashkashok II,22
Thalathat II,23 and Sabi Abiyad Levels 4–10.24 While
the former two sites probably predate Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe by a few hundred years,25 Sabi Abiyad
Levels 1–7 (the Early Halaf and Transitional Phases)
appear roughly contemporary with Levels 1–4 of21
Korobkova 1996, 59–63.
22
Nishiaki 1991, 1993.
23
Nishiaki 1995.
24
Copeland 1996.
25

Nishiaki/Le Mière 2005.

18

Nishiaki et al.

larity with Göytepe is the depositional (or abandonment) processes of ground stones, which were
often found in clusters on floors, apparently as defacto refuse or a cache surrounded by curvilinear
walls.28 We plan to conduct detailed examinationsof tool composition, raw material use, and morphometric attributes of food processing tools aswell as their stratigraphic patterns in order to clarify when and how cereal processing technology
developed in this early agricultural settlement.
(S. Kadowaki)
Miscellaneous finds

Fig. 24
Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.
A burnt clay specimen
with ‘‘basket’’ impression from Level 1

Fig. 25
Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.
A shell fragment fromLevel 1Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.26 This indicates that ongoing
discussions on Neolithic cultural links between thesouthern Caucasus and northern Mesopotamia, currently centered on the S̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri and Halaf
cultures,27 also need to consider earlier time periods. This should help us better clarify the picture of
Neolithization in the southern Caucasus.
The excavation at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe also
recovered a significant number of ground stone artifacts, including upper and lower grinding tools,
pounders, crushing cobbles, and pebbles (or slingstones), indicating a range of tool types broadly
similar to the Göytepe assemblage. Another simi-

In addition to pottery, chipped and ground stone
artifacts and bone tools (see below), the artifact assemblage includes a variety of other Neolithic objects. The most notable are burnt clay specimens,
which are far more numerous than pottery sherds.
They were commonly found in all occupation levels,
especially from the ashy sediments and ash pits ofLevels 1 and 2. The fact that burnt clay specimens
were rarely found at Göytepe poses intriguing questions regarding their function or use. Their shapes
are rather amorphous. The discovery of specimens
with ‘‘basket’’ and ‘‘cord’’ impressions (Fig. 24) suggests that the present burnt clay collection contains
fragments of the clay coating of organic containers.
Another commonly found group of objects issling stones or missiles. The majority was made ofstone, but two were made from clay. Sling missiles
were recovered from all Neolithic levels. A noteworthy context is the cache of Level 1, located inside a circular building near the wall. Sling stones
were found together with obsidian pieces, clay balls,
ground stones, and animal bones in this cache(Fig. 9). Both sling stones and clay balls have asimilar shape and size, approximately 3–5 cm inlength and about 3 cm in width.
Finds of ornamental objects include one interesting piece of shell. This fragment of a bivalve
was recovered from the ashy sediment of Level 1(Fig. 25). The maximum diameter is 15 mm. Its overall shape is semicircular and the dorsal surface exhibits a grid-like pattern, suggesting that this shell possibly belongs to the family Cardiidae, which includes
species known in the Caspian and the Black Sea.
(T. M i k i)

Botanical remains
We took 32 flotation samples from 14 contexts ofSquare M10 during the 2012 season. The amount26
Campbell 2007.
27

For example, Hansen et al. 2007; Badalyan et al. 2007.

28

Guliyev/Nishiaki 2012a, 77.

19Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe 2012

Fig. 26
Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.
Charred remains
from Square M10. –1 spikelet base of hulled wheat; – 2 wheat
grain; – 3 barley grain(scale bar ¼ 1 mm)of sediments for each sample was between 1 and 6
liters, with an average of 2.9 liters. Their contexts
include ash pit, hearth, and building floor. One circular structure in Level 4 was sampled in detail because numerous artifacts were found in situ on its
floor under collapsed mudbrick walls. The samples
were collected according to 1 # 1 m sub-grids (A toI) for both macro-botanical and micro-fossil analysis(see above).
The macro-botanical samples were processedby the water-flotation method using a 0.3 mm meshsieve.29 Abundant samples of light fractions were collected, but only three of them have been identified
to date. The plant remains are mostly charred seeds
and chaff, with some mineralized seeds of Boraginaceae. Although the seed density is rather low (onaverage 11 items per liter), at least two kinds of cereals and several wild species have been identified.
Among food plants, glumes of hulled wheat(Triticum sp.), barley rachis (Hordeum vulgare),grains of barley and wheat, and one stone of hawthorn (Crataegus sp.) were recovered (Fig. 26). Wild
taxa are represented by seeds of Asteraceae, Boraginaceae, Brassicaceae, Chenopodiaceae, Fabaceae,
and Poaceae. One of the samples contained morethan 100 Chenopodium-type seeds. Other than the
flotation samples, some mineralized hackberry stones(Celtis sp.), a common fruit in prehistoric West Asia,
were retrieved by hand in the field. The cereals
probably include domesticated barley and wheat.
However, as the number of remains is too small
and most of them are fragmentary, we need more
samples for further identification and interpretationof human plant consumption.
(C. A k a s h i)

Faunal remains
During the 2012 season, a total of 5,984 fragmentsof animal bones, teeth, antlers, and horn cores
29 The water flotation equipment at the Göytepe expedition house

was prepared by Ken’ichi Tanno during the 2009 season.

were discovered in Square M10. Worked bone tools
were also collected (see below). These materials
were recovered by both hand-picking and dry-sieving methods. In contrast to the situation at Göytepe, the preservation of faunal remains is poor: almost all specimens are highly fragmented and someare heavily burnt (12%). This suggests differences
between the sites in terms of climatic/sedimentological environments, site formation processes, andhuman activities (e.g., exploitation intensity of animal resources). The poor preservation makes it difficult to identify species from the faunal remains. As
a result, the majority of specimens has been identified only to size class (Tab. 5).
To date, 15 species have been identified(Tab. 5). These include sheep (Ovis aries), goat
(Capra hircus), cattle (Bos taurus), wild or domesticpig (Sus scrofa), dog (Canis familiaris), red deer
(Cervus elaphus), gazelle (Gazella subgutturosa),
hare (Lepus capensis), tortoise (Testudo graeca),
Aves (at least two species), rodent, mollusc, reptile
and frog. It is likely that sheep, goats, cattle, andpossibly pigs represent domestic animals based on
their sizes and morphologies.
Sheep and goats account for more than 80%of the identified faunal remains. Of these, sheep
are the predominant taxon in each level. Survivorship for sheep and goats has not yet been analyzed, but most individuals are apparently younger
than two years old based on their toothwear patterns. Remains of cattle and pigs are scarce andthe latter vary in number by levels. It is important
to note that the frequency of cattle increases gradually in the upper levels.
Remains of hunted animals are limited. Amongthem, bird remains are most notable. Their skeletons are represented only by forelimb elements,
which may reflect varied uses of bird remains. One
specimen from Level 2 is worked, probably during
the process of bead manufacture. Otherwise, it ispossible that the inhabitants of this site were interested in feathers.
Based on radiocarbon dating, Hacı Elamxanlı
Tepe was settled as early as in the beginning of20

Nishiaki et al.

Level 1(n ¼ 1027)

Level 2(n ¼ 2568)

Level 3(n ¼ 995)

Level 4(n ¼ 815)

Total(n ¼ 5405)

Ovis aries

24

68

7

29

128

Capra hircus

9

8

3

9

29

Ovis aries/Capra hircus

56

218

29

84

387

Bos taurus

6

10

1

1

18

Sus scrofa

12

8

4

5

29

Gazella subgutturosa

2

1

1

1

5

Identified

Ovis/Capra/Gazella

16

47

7

4

74

Ovis/Capra/Gazella/Capreolus

8

0

0

3

11

Bos/Cervus

1

0

1

0

2

Canis familiaris

1

0

1

0

2

Cervus elaphus

1

2

1

1

5

Cervid

0

0

0

1

1

Gazella/Capreolus

0

1

0

0

1

Lepus capensis

0

0

0

2

2

Tortoise

7

6

3

5

21

Bird

0

9

1

1

11

Mollusc

1

0

0

0

1

Reptile

1

1

0

0

2

Small Rodent

6

8

0

3

17

Frog

1

1

1

1

4

Total

152

388

60

150

750

Indeterminate

Tab. 5Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.
Number of faunal
specimens excavatedin 2012

Small Mammal

2

2

0

1

5

Small/Medium Mammal

19

400

32

26

477

Medium Mammal

765

1772

859

620

4016

Medium/Large Mammal

12

2

2

1

17

Large Mammal

77

4

42

17

140

Total

875

2180

935

665

4655

the 6th millennium BCE (and also probably the late
7th millennium BCE). Our zooarchaeological results
demonstrate the existence of domestic livestock on
the northern side of the Lesser Caucasus as earlyas the 6th millennium BCE, which represents theoldest and most reliable evidence of animal domestication in the region.
Worked bone and antler tools
The 2012 excavations yielded 83 worked bone andantler tools, accounting for 1.4% of the total faunal

remains. The assemblage consists of awls, spatulae,
bipoints, palettes, buttonettes, hammers, and ornaments. Of these, awls represent the most common
tool type (n ¼ 43), which were produced primarily
on long bones of medium-sized mammals (mainly
sheep and goats). Many specimens are made fromblanks acquired by the groove-and-splinter technique, which were then finished by abrasion. Althoughother types of tools are represented by small sample sizes, observations of surface traces suggestthat these were also made using similar techniques.
(S. A r a i)

21

Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe 2012

Discussion
The main goal of the 2012 excavations was to define the chronological position of Hacı Elamxanlı
Tepe and to clarify whether this Neolithic site predates the S̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri phase. As describedabove, the results indicate this likelihood. The radiocarbon dates obtained from the latest levels of Hacı
Elamxanlı Tepe point to the very early centuries of
the 6th millennium BCE, a period earlier than is generally known for the S̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri sites.
Although a series of dates run in the 1970s broadly
dated the S̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri culture to the 6th –5th
millennium BCE,30 recent, more controlled investigations have narrowed its temporal span to the earlymiddle part of the 6th millennium BCE. For instance,
the resumed excavations at Aruchlo in the Republicof Georgia have assigned its occupation duration to
between 5800 and 5300 BCE.31 Similarly, the oldest
levels of Mentesh Tepe, approximately 10 km eastof Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, have yielded comparable
materials dating to the second quarter of the 6th
millennium BCE.32 Our excavations at Göytepe also
provide a similar picture. Whilst the excavations have
not reached virgin soil, the major portion of the
9 m thick S̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri cultural sequence has
been dated to the second and third quarters of the
6th millennium BCE.33 Given that the radiocarbon
dates from its lower levels close to the virgin soil
are not earlier, the settlement of Göytepe might havebeen occupied after the abandonment of Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.
All of these data indicate that Hacı Elamxanlı
Tepe is the oldest Pottery Neolithic settlement
known to date in the Middle Kura Valley. Moreover,this settlement represents one of the oldest Neolithic sites in the southern Caucasus. Apart fromsites requiring further documentation34 and those
without evidence of farming,35 the oldest group of
Neolithic sites in the southern Caucasus has been
dated to the interface period of the 7th –6th millennium BCE, to which Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe is quite
comparable. In the region east of the Lesser Caucasus, such sites are known in the Mil-Qarabagh plain,approximately 200 km southeast of Hacı Elamxanlı
Tepe.36 On the southern side of the Lesser Caucasus, the oldest traces of farming settlements have30

˝/(ŁC/B@- 1987, 194; Korobkova 1996, 74.

31 Hansen/Mirtskhulava 2012, 85–86.
32 Lyonnet/Guliyev 2012, 87–88.
33 Guliyev/Nishiaki 2012b.
34

Museibli et al. 2009; 2010. The small settlement of Hasansu,
also in the Middle Kura Valley, is reported to contain an aceramic Neolithic layer below a S̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri layer.
35
Arimura et al. 2010.
36
Helwing/Aliyev 2012.

been detected in the lowest levels of Aratas̆en andAknas̆en-Khatunarkh. Similarly, their radiocarbon
dates point to the early 6th millennium BCE.37 With
the addition of Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe in the Middle
Kura Valley to this list of the earliest farming settlements, it is evident that Neolithization was underway on both sides of the Lesser Caucasus Mountains almost simultaneously.
Chronologically placed prior to the main sitesof the S̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri culture, Hacı Elamxanlı
Tepe raises important questions. For example, can
we interpret it to represent a completely different
culture or an earlier phase of the same cultural
entity? Indeed, this question gets to the point of amajor issue, which is the origin of the S̆omutepeS̆ulaveri culture. The archaeological record from Hacı
Elamxanlı Tepe should certainly make important
contributions to clarifying this issue. However, it ispremature to explore this issue in depth at the present stage of research, since the current excavations of Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe are too limited in scale
to understand certain aspects such as settlement
organization and architectural techniques. More importantly, our excavations at Göytepe have not defined the oldest stage of the long S̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri cultural sequence, whose assemblage is key forcomparison to Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.
Whatever the case, it is nonetheless clear thatthe available evidence has important implications
for understanding the origin and development of theS̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri culture. One implication is that
although continuity is seen between Hacı Elamxanlı
Tepe and the typical S̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri sites, differences are also evident. For example, a relatively
large building size is uniquely different at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe38 despite other similarities in architecture, such as the use of plano-convex mudbricks
and the (semi-)circular floorplan. Common traces ofdomestic activities within the building also differ.
However, this conclusion is based on a limited excavated area, while such traces are often found in
an open-air courtyard at Göytepe. Among the material remains, the rarity of pottery and the common
manifestation of mineral tempered ware at Hacı
Elamxanlı Tepe are comparable to features in thelower levels of the Göytepe sequence.39 However,as already noted, the technology for making thosewares differs and the presence of painted fine wareat Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe represents a remarkable difference. The lithic assemblages also show similarities and differences. While both assemblages arecharacterized by obsidian pressure debitage, theuse of obsidian is less common and trapeze-arrow37
Badalyan et al. 2010.
38
Guliyev/Nishiaki 2012b.
39

Guliyev/Nishiaki 2012b.

22

Nishiaki et al.

heads and flint scrapers are far more abundant atHacı Elamxanlı Tepe than at Göytepe. In addition,
the blade size of tools at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe isapparently smaller, resulting in a higher frequencyof bladelets than blades. The device and techniqueused for pressure debitage must have differed in
the production of these different sized blanks.40
These lines of evidence most likely reflect theunique formation processes of the S̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri culture. In other words, the material elementscharacterizing the S̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri culture such as
those known at S̆omutepe, Aruchlo, and Göytepe,
did not appear in the Middle Kura as a ‘‘package.’’
Instead, these elements appeared one by one. The
picture of the S̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri culture defined in
the 1980s41 is thus considered as a collective view
to cultural changes in the early centuries of the 6th
millennium BCE. Previous attempts at dividing theS̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri culture to several stages havebeen mainly based on pottery, relying on limited
information of their stratigraphic contexts.42 Thedata from both Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe and Göytepe
would provide a valuable framework for investigating the changing cultural patterns over a long timeframe.
The second implication on the early stages of
the S̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri culture is related to the cultural link with the Middle East, which has been repeatedly mentioned in the literature.43 The discovery
of Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe allows us to evaluate thiswith a longer chronological perspective. Most important is the discovery of painted fine ware, whose
exceptionally high quality strongly suggests it was
imported from regions to the south. Sherds of imported painted wares such as Samarra and Halaffrom Anatolia and Northern Mesopotamia have been
known from the southern Lesser Caucasus.44 If theprovenance is confirmed, the two sherds from Hacı
Elamxanlı Tepe are the first examples from thenorthern foothills. The occurrence of a unique typeof trapeze-arrowheads at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe also
indicates a link with the south. Although the trapezearrowheads themselves were widely utilized in late
7th and early 6th millennium BC contexts from the‘‘East Wing of the Fertile Crescent’’ stretching from
Anatolia to southern Iran,45 those of the southern
Caucasus include a distinct type. This is the bilateral pressure-flaked trapeze, whose lateral sides aresegmented by snapping, and the snapped ends areassociated with flat pressure retouch on the dorsal
40 Wilke 1996; Badalyan et al., 2010.
41
˝/(ŁC/B@- 1987.
42
Chataigner et al. 1995; Kiguradze/Menabde 2004.
43
˝/(ŁC/B@- 1987; Korobkova 1996.
44
˝/(ŁC/B@- 1987; Badalyan et al. 2010.
45

Kozlowski 1999.

surface (Fig. 22,2.6). This unique type of arrowhead
also occurs in Upper Mesopotamia. Remarkably,
parallel arrowheads have been discovered together
with Samarra pottery at Sabi Abyad I in Levels 6–4, dated to the same period of ca. 6000–5900 BCE
at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe.46 As mentioned in the section on chipped stone artifacts, the overall characteristics of the lithic industry at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepenever indicate a foreign origin but the closest parallels are found in the earlier period of the southern
Caucasus. The recovery of unique arrowheads aswell as painted ceramics attests to interactions between the southern Caucasus and regions to thesouth at the 7th –6th millennium boundary period.
(Y. N i s h i a k i)

Conclusion
The 2012 excavations of Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe revealed rich Neolithic occupational deposits on theupper portions of the mound. The associated archaeological evidence, including radiocarbon dates
and traces of plant and animal domestication, indicates that those deposits are derived from anearly farming community from the very early centuries of the 6th millennium BCE. This corresponds tothe oldest Pottery Neolithic phase in the southern
Caucasus. It is evident that Hacı Elamxanlı Tepepossesses a great deal of potential for investigating
the origin and development of early farming communities. It also demonstrates that the Neolithic
communities appeared as early as the beginning of
the 6th millennium BCE, in tandem with other regions on both sides of the Lesser Caucasus Mountains.
It remains to be determined whether the cultural entity of Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe signifies a new
culture or if it represents an early phase of the S̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri culture. However, similarities anddifferences in material remains, such as circularmudbrick buildings, mineral-tempered pottery, andthe chipped stone industry indicate that the entityof Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe embodies an important formational stage in the S̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri culture.
Although the 2012 excavations were limited to thelatest levels, further excavations at Hacı Elamxanlı
Tepe are expected to reveal earlier ones. More evidence for defining this cultural process over aneven longer chronological perspective will be obtained over the next seasons.
(Y. Ni s h i a k i and F. G u l i y e v)

46

Akkermans 1996.

23

Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe 2012e

Akhundov 2004
T. Akhundov, South Caucasus in the Neolithic to Early
Bronze Age: The question of epochs and periods. In:
A. Sagona (ed.), A view from the Highlands: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Charles Burney, Ancient Near
Eastern Studies Supplement 12 (Leuven 2004) 421–436.
Akkermans 1996
P. M. M. G. Akkermans, Tell Sabi Abyad II. The Late
Neolithic settlement. Report on the University of Amsterdam (1988) and the National Museum of Antiquities ofLeiden (1991–1993) in Syria. Publications de l’Institut
historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul 76(Istanbul 1996).
Arimura et al. 2010
M. Arimura/R. Badalyan/B. Gasparyan/C. Chataigner, Current neolithic research in Armenia. Neo-Lithics 1/10, 2010,
77–85.
Badalyan et al. 2007
R. Badalyan/P. Lombard/P. Avetisyan/C. Chataigner/J. Chabot/E. Vila/R. Hovsepyan/G. Willcox/H. Pessin, New dataon the late prehistory of the southern Caucasus. The excavations at Aratashen (Armenia): preliminary report. In:
B. Lyonnet (ed.), Les cultures du Caucase (VIe –IIIe millénaires avant notre ère): Leurs relations avec le ProcheOrient (Paris 2007) 37–61.
Badalyan et al. 2010
R. Badalyan/A. A. Harutyunyan/C. Chataigner/F. Le Mort/
J. Chabot/J. E. Brochier/A. Balasescu/V. Radu/R. Hovsepyan,
The settlement of Aknashen-Khatunarkh, a Neolithic site
in the Ararat plain (Armenia): excavation results 2004–
2009, TÜBA-AR 13, 2010, 185–218.
Campbell 2007
S. Campbell, Rethinking Halaf chronologies. Paléorient
33, 2007, No. 1, 103–136.
Chataigner 1995
C. Chataigner, La Transcaucasie au Néolithique et au Chalcolithique. British Archaeological Report International
Series 624 (Oxford 1995).
Copeland 1996
L. Copeland, The flint and obsidian industries. In: P. M.
M. G. Akkermans (ed.), Tell Sabi Abyad II. The Late Neolithic settlement. Report on the University of Amsterdam(1988) and the National Museum of Antiquities of Leiden (1991–1993) in Syria. Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul (Istanbul 1996) 285–338.

eBibliographye e

We would like to thank Dr. Maisa Ragimova, Director of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography,
National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan, for allowing us to conduct the current research. Some ofthe drawings in Fig. 22 were illustrated by Dr. Hiroto
Nakata, Aoyama Gakuin University. Financial support
was granted by the Japan Society for Promotion of
Sciences and the Science Development Foundation,
the Republic of Azerbaijan.

Gasparyan 2010
B. Gasparyan, Landscape organization and resource management in the Lower Palaeolithic of Armenia. TÜBA-AR
13, 2010, 159–183.
Guliyev et al. 2010
F. Guliyev/Y. Nishiaki/F. Huseinov/S. Kadowaki/K. Tanno/
Y. Hayakawa/N. Hacızade/T. Babayeva/S. Kume/K. Shimogama/Y. Arimatsu/C. Akashi, Göyt p Neolit yaşayış
verınd arxeoloji qazıntılar (Tovuz rayonu), Az rbaijanda
Arxeoloji T dqiqatlar 2009, 45–54.
Guliyev/Nishiaki 2012aF. Guliyev/Y. Nishiaki, Excavations at the Neolithic settlement of Göytepe, the middle Kura Valley, Azerbaijan,
2008–2009. In: R. Matthews/J. Curtis (eds.), Proceedingsof the 7th International Congress of the Archaeology of
the Ancient Near East 3: Fieldwork and recent research(Wiesbaden 2012) 71–84.
Guliyev/Nishiaki 2012b
F. Guliyev/Y. Nishiaki, The origin of civilization – the earlyvillage of Goytepe, West Azerbaijan, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography (Baku 2012).
Hansen/Mirtskhulava 2012
S. Hansen/G. Mirtskhulava, The Neolithic settlement ofAruchlo: Report on the excavations in 2009–2011 (inB. Lyonnet/F. Guliyev/B. Helwing/T. Aliyev/S. Hansen/
G. Mirtskhulava, Ancient Kura 2010–2011: the first two
seasons of joint field work in the southern Caucasus).
Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 44, 2012,
58–86.
Hansen et al. 2007
S. Hansen/G. Mirtskhulava/K. Bastert-Lamprichs, Aruchlo:a Neolithic settlement mound in the Caucasus. Neo-Lithics
1/07, 2007, 13–19.
Hansen et al. 2006
S. Hansen/G. Mirtskhulava/K. Bastert-Lamprichs/N. Benecke/I. Gatsov/P. Nedelcheva, Aruchlo 2005–2006: Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in einem neolithischen Siedlungshügel. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und
Turan 38, 2006, 1–34.
Helwing/Aliyev 2012
B. Helwing/T. Aliyev, Fieldwork in the Mil Plain: the2010–2011 expedition (in B. Lyonnet/. Guliyev/B. Helwing/T. Aliyev/S. Hansen/G. Mirtskhulava, Ancient Kura
2010–2011: the first two seasons of joint field work inthe southern Caucasus). Archäologische Mitteilungen aus
Iran und Turan 44, 2012, 4–16.
Kiguradze/Menabde 2004
T. Kiguradze/M. Menabde, The Neolithic of Georgia. In:
A. Sagona (ed.), A view from the Highlands: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Charles Burney, Ancient Near
Eastern Studies Supplement 12 (Leuven 2004) 345–398.
Korobkova 1996
G. F. Korobkova, The Neolithic chipped stone industriesof the southern Caucasus. In: S. K. Kozlowski/H. G. K.
Gebel (ed.), Neolithic chipped stone industries of the
Fertile Crescent, and their contemporaries in adjacentregions. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 3 (Berlin 1996) 57–89.
Kottek et al. 2006
M. Kottek/J. Grieser/C. Beck/B. Rudolf/F. Rubel, World mapof the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorologische Zeitschrift 15, 2006, 259–263.

eAcknowledgements

24

Nishiaki et al.
Kozlowski 1996
S. K. Kozlowski, The Trialetian ‘‘Mesolithic’’ industry of
the Caucasus, Transcaucasia, eastern Anatolia, and the
Iranian Plateau. In: S. K. Kozlowski/H. G. K. Gebel (eds.),
Neolithic chipped stone industries of the Fertile Crescent, and their contemporaries in adjacent regions. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, andEnvironment 3 (Berlin 1996) 161–170.
Kozlowski 1999
S. K. Kozlowski, The Eastern Wing of the Fertile Crescent.
Late Prehistory of Greater Mesopotamian lithic industries,
British Archaeological Reports International Series 760(Oxford 1999).
Lyonnet/Guliyev 2012
B. Lyonnet /F. Guliyev, Part III: Mentesh Tepe (in B. Lyonnet/. Guliyev/B. Helwing/T. Aliyev/S. Hansen/G. Mirtskhulava, Ancient Kura 2010–2011: the first two seasons ofjoint field work in the southern Caucasus). Archäologische
Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 44, 2012, 86–121.
Museibli et al. 2009
N. Museibli/G. Akhundova/A. Agalarzadeh, Archaeological excavations in Neolithic settlements in the territoryof the Agstafa region. Az rbaijanda Arxeoloji T dqiqatlar
2009 (Baku 2009) 31–37.
Museibli et al. 2010
N. Museibli/G. Akhundova/A. Agalarzadeh, Archaeological excavations at Hassansu I and Molla Nagi Tepe neolithic settlements in 2010. Az rbaijanda Arxeoloji T dqiqatlar 2010 (Baku 2010), 39–45.
Nishiaki 1991
Y. Nishiaki, Chipped stone artifacts. In: T. Matsutani (ed.),Tell Kashkashok: The excavations at Tell No. II. Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Oriental Culture(Tokyo 1991) 40–58.
Nishiaki 1993
Y. Nishiaki, Anatolian obsidian and the neolithic obsidian industries of North Syria: A preliminary review. In:
H. I. H. Prince/T. Mikasa (eds.), Essays on Anatolian Archaeology (Wiesbaden 1993) 120–140.
Nishiaki 1995
Y. Nishiaki, Reexamination of neolithic stone artifacts
from Telul eth-Thalathat, northern Iraq. In: H. I. H. Prince/eeFarhad Guliyev
Institute of Archaeology and Ethnographyof the Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan
Baku AZ1143
Azerbaijan
E-mail: fred_amea@mail.ru
Seiji Kadowaki
Nagoya University Museum
Nagoya University
Nagoya 464-8601
Japan
E-mail: kadowaki@num.nagoya-u.ac.jpeeYoshihiro Nishiaki
The University Museum
The University of Tokyo
Tokyo 113-0033
Japan
E-mail: nishiaki@um.u-tokyo.ac.jp

T. Mikasa (eds.), Essays on Anatolia and its surrounding
civilizations (Wiesbaden 1995) 153–171.
Nishiaki/Le Mière 2005
Y. Nishiaki/M. Le Mière, The oldest Pottery Neolithic ofUpper Mesopotamia: New evidence from Tell Seker
al-Aheimar, the Khabur, northeast Syria. Paléorient 31,
2005, No. 2, 55–68.
Ollivier/Fontugne 2012
V. Ollivier/M. Fontugne, Holocene landscape and human modes of occupation in the Kura Valley (Azerbaijan)(in B. Lyonnet/. Guliyev/B. Helwing/T. Aliyev/S. Hansen/
G. Mirtskhulava, Ancient Kura 2010–2011: the first two
seasons of joint field work in the southern Caucasus).
Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 44, 2012,
121–127.
Ollivier et al. 2011
V. Ollivier/M. Fontugne/B. Lyonnet/B. Helwing, Geomorphological studies in the Middle Valley of the Kura River(Azerbaijan): First key to understand the Postglaciallandscape mutations linked to climate changes and human occupation. Paper presented at the European
Geosciences Union, 2011.
Wilke 1996
P. J. Wilke, Bullet-shaped microblade cores of the Near
Eastern Neolithic: experimental replicative studies. In:
S. K. Kozlowski/H. G. K. Gebel (eds.), Neolithic chippedstone industries of the Fertile Crescent, and their contemporaries in adjacent regions. Studies in Early Near
Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 3(Berlin 1996) 289–310.
World Meteorological Information 2013
World Meteorological Information, World Weather Information Service, http://worldweather.wmo.int/007/
c00019.htm (Last accessed 17 March 2013).
˝/(ŁC/B@- 1987¨. ˆ. ˝/(ŁC/B@-, ˚$º:%$(/ +(*-B*Øł*ª@ H*Cº*+*º:[*æŒ@-æŒ@%@-@+[*æŒ@ª@B/æ*º*BŁ'SH*(Æ/Ø+I/B/(`/Œ$ 1987).

Yui Arimatsu
Department of Archaeology
Hiroshima University
Higashi Hiroshima 739-8511
Japan
E-mail: yui_a_0513@yahoo.co.jp
Yuichi Hayakawa
Center for Spatial Information Science
The University of Tokyo
Tokyo 113-0033
Japan
E-mail: hayakawa@csis.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Kazuya Shimogama
Ancient Orient Museum
Tokyo 170-8630
Japan
E-mail: kzyshmgm2@hotmail.com

25

Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe 2012
Saiji Arai
Department of Archaeology
The University of Tokyo
Tokyo 113-0033
Japan
E-mail: rhino_deracine@yahoo.co.jp

Takehiro Miki
Department of Archaeology
he University of Tokyo
Tokyo 113-0033
Japan
E-mail: lambtake@yahoo.co.jp
Chie Akashi
Faculty of Letters, Arts and Science
Waseda University
Tokyo 162-8644
JapanE-mail: cats@moegi.waseda.jp

Shahin Salimbeyov
Institute of Archaeology and Ethnographyof the Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan
Baku AZ1143
Azerbaijan
E-mail: salimbeyov@hotmail.com

Summary—$#%"$Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe is a small Neolithic mound situatednear Tovuz in the Middle Kura Valley, west Azerbaijan. It
was discovered during a site reconnaissance survey conducted in 2011 in the vicinity of Göytepe, an important
Neolithic mound from the S̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri cultural phase.
Göytepe is known as one of the oldest full-fledged Neolithic sites in the southern Caucasus. Since the surface collection suggested an earlier Neolithic date for Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe than for Göytepe, test excavations were carriedout in the summer of 2012. The results demonstrate that
this settlement indeed derives from a very early Pottery
Neolithic community from the beginning of the 6th millennium BCE or earlier, predating the major occupation periodof S̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri sites such as Göytepe and Aruchlo.
At the same time, similarities and differences are revealed
between the cultural assemblages of Hacı Elamxanlı Tepeand the S̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri sites. These findings point out
that more substantial investigations of this mound should
lead to our better understanding the origin of the S̆omutepe-S̆ulaveri culture, the earliest farming community in theregion.

Q/+IŁ 3º/Cı/ºŁ %*?*, (/æ?@º@I*BBßØ B*+/º*Œ@ @%V@-$H/ - æ(*+B*C %*[*BŁŁ ˚$(ß, ˙/?/+BßØ SH*(Æ/Ø+I/B, ?(*+æ%/-º'*% æ@Æ@Ø B*Æ@º:ł@Ø ı@ºC-?@æ*º*BŁ*9?@ıŁ B*@ºŁ%/. ˇ/C'%BŁŒ Æßº @ÆB/($I*B - 2011 ª@+$?(Ł ?(@-*+*BŁŁ /(ı*@º@ªŁ[*æŒ@Ø (/H-*+ŒŁ C*æ%B@æ%Ł B*?@æ(*+æ%-*BB@Ø ÆºŁH@æ%Ł @% ˆ‚Ø%*?*, Œº7[*-@ª@?/C'%BŁŒ/, @%B@æ'ø*ª@æ' Œ B*@ºŁ%Ł[*æŒ@Ø Œ$º:%$(*
M@C$%*?*-M$º/-*(Ł. ˆ‚Ø%*?* ŁH-*æ%*B Œ/Œ @+ŁB ŁH+(*-B*ØłŁı ?/C'%BŁŒ@- 9?@ıŁ B*@ºŁ%/ B/ 2IB@C ˚/-Œ/H*. ˛+B/Œ@, æÆ@(BßØ C/%*(Ł/º ?@H-@ºŁº ?(*+?@º@IŁ%: Æ@º** (/BB77 +/%$ +º' Q/+IŁ 3º/Cı/ºŁ %*?*,[*C +º' ˆ‚Ø%*?*. —*H$º:%/%ß %*æ%@-ßı (/æŒ@?@Œ, ?(@-*+‚BBßı º*%@C 2012 ª@+/ B/ªº'+B@ +*C@Bæ%(Ł($*% H/æ*º*BŁ* ?/C'%BŁŒ/ B/[ŁB/' æ 9?@ıŁ (/BB*ª@ Œ*(/CŁ[*æŒ@ª@ B*@ºŁ%/ B/[/º/ 6-ª@ %ßæ. +@ B/ł*Ø 9(ß ŁºŁ(/B:ł*, B*?@æ(*+æ%-*BB@ ?*(*+ -@HBŁŒB@-*BŁ*C ?/C'%BŁŒ@- Œ$º:%$(ß M@C$%*?*-M$º/-*(Ł, %/ŒŁı Œ/Œˆ‚Ø%*?* Ł S($ıº@. ´ %@ I* -(*C', ÆßºŁ -ß'-º*Bß Œ/Œ
æı@+æ%-/ – %/Œ Ł (/HºŁ[Ł' C*I+$ Œ$º:%$(BßCŁ Œ@C?º*Œæ/CŁ Q/+IŁ 3º/Cı/ºŁ %*?* Ł ?/C'%BŁŒ@- %Ł?/M@C$%*?*-M$º/-*(Ł. ˇ@º$[*BBß* B/CŁ (*H$º:%/%ß
$Œ/Hß-/7% B/ B*@Æı@+ŁC@æ%: +/º:B*Øł*ª@ Łææº*+@-/BŁ' ?/C'%BŁŒ/ Q/+IŁ 3º/Cı/ºŁ %*?*, [%@, ?@ -æ*Ø-Ł+ŁC@æ%Ł, ?@H-@ºŁ% º$[ł* ?@B'%: ?(@Łæı@I+*BŁ*
M@C$%*?*-M$º/-*(Ł Œ/Œ B/ŁÆ@º** (/BB*Ø H*Cº*+*º:[*æŒ@Ø Œ$º:%$(ß - (*ªŁ@B*.