ORIGINI XLI, 2018: 55-82

same same but different: a comparison of 6th

ata
millennium bce communities in southern caucasia
and northwestern iran

iet
Barbara Helwing*

ev
Tevekkül Aliyev**

n
Abstract – The 6th millennium BCE sees the first sedentary settlements in the southern Caucasus,

sio
with small scale farming communities established in various pockets of landscape in the lowlands of
the Araxes and Kura rivers. The paper takes a micro-historical approach to explore the variability
within the archaeological record deriving from new research in the Mil Steppe of southern Azerbaijan
Republic and compares that with the published record from contemporary Hajji Firuz in Northwestern

u
Iran. This allows tracing hidden patterns relating to cultural traditions and habits in the use of space,

iff
preparation of food and material culture in a close-up on similarities and differences between these
two closely related areas, making individual pathways and strategies visible that distinguish human
behaviour in these two areas. .D
Keywords – Late Neolithic, South Caucasia, micro-history, settlement behaviour, procurement
strategies
18

Riassunto – Il VI millennio BCE vede la comparsa dei primi insediamenti stabili nel Caucaso
meridionale, con comunità basate sull’agricoltura su piccola scala insediate in varie aree nelle pianure
/20

dei fiumi Arax e Kura. Questo lavoro utilizza un approccio micro-storico per esplorare la variabilità
all’interno del record archeologico derivante da nuove ricerche nella Mil Steppe della Repubblica
dell’Azerbaijan meridionale e per confrontarlo con i dati già editi del contemporaneo sito di Hajji
Firuz nell’Iran nord-occidentale. Ciò consente di tracciare modelli nascosti relativi alle tradizioni
1

e alle abitudini culturali nell’uso dello spazio, nella preparazione del cibo e nella cultura materiale,
5/1

mettendo in rilievo le somiglianze e le differenze tra queste due aree strettamente correlate, rendendo
visibili percorsi e strategie individuali che distinguono il comportamento umano in queste due aree.
Parole chiave – Neolitico recente, Caucaso meridionale, microstoria, comportamento insediativo,
0

strategie di approvvigionamento.
re

introduction perspectives with a focus on the more

and more distant past. Attention was
uto

The emergence of social complexity, paid to the very roots of the development
a major characteristic of the Bronze Age of complexity as these appear in the
civilizations in the Old World, is an issue 4th and 5th mill. BCE from a variety
aa

much debated in anthropological theory: of angles. In this paper, the temporal

how did inequality evolve and which were scope will be even further widened
the social technologies and individual and a perspective on the 6 th mill. BCE
zz

strategies adopted by aspirant leaders will be adopted in order to deepen the

on the way to established hierarchies? perspective and to discern some longue-
Bo

In Ancient Western Asia, the last three durée trajectories previously not touched
decades of research have spawned new upon. A preliminary interpretation of

55
 Helwing, Aliyev
data gained from our ongoing research
in the Southern Caucasus is at the basis
of the argument. It emphasizes the role
and mode of communicative processes
and cooperative actions in the formation
of social entities. After a brief review
of current models on early complexity,
the interpretive framework used in this
argumentation will be introduced, before
the case studies are presented: these should
allow the reconstruction of individual
developmental trajectories towards the
establishing of complex communities
– or not. Once these trajectories have
become visible and established in time,
mechanisms and triggers at the core of the
observed development will be scrutinized.
As a working hypothesis, we start from the
assumption that contact, communication
and cooperation played a major role in the
18
establishing of complexity.
/20
theories on early complexity
Research into the emergence of social
1
complexity is one of the ever-lasting
issues in anthropological inquiry. When,
5/1
where and how it happened has been
investigated from a plethora of angles,
on the basis of cultural materialism,
0
evolutionism, processual and post-
processual approaches. If we look at
re
these various models, we can arrange
uto
them on a scaled continuum according
to the weight that is given to the role of
active human engagement in societal
development: this scale begins with a
aa
rigid environmental determinism where
geographical, climatic and demographic
zz
variables define the frame within which
human communities develop through
sheer adaptation. Towards the open-top
Bo
end of the scale cultural and historical
factors as well as human decision-making
56
and social strategies come into the picture.
ata
More or less balanced approaches were
taken since the early days of the formation
of archaeology as an academic discipline,
iet
for example by visionary classics like
Gordon Childe’s “Man makes himself ”
ev
(Childe 1948) or “New light on the most
ancient Near East” (Childe 1935). Childe,
as one of the most original protagonists of
n
cultural materialism, argues that natural
sio
geographical and climatic conditions
were prime factors that favored the
development of a surplus economy which
u
in consequence allowed for an increasing
iff
internal differentiation of society. At the
same time, he emphasized the potential
to choose between individual trajectories
.D
(Childe 1925). To become efficient, the
application of social technologies to
control the flow of surplus and of labor
through means of externalized memory
such as writing and sealing was crucial.
Childe’s approach was confronted in
the 1960s – the early days of the New
Archaeology that pushed to regard
archaeology as a natural science – with a
strong environmental determinism that
took the development of social complexity
to be the natural adaptive response of
humans to favorable natural conditions
(Butzer 1972). The re-discovery of social
behaviour as a prime mover followed
in the 1970s (Redman 1978b). Childe
‘s economy-driven approach has been
further developed by anthropologists
explicitly engaging in the field of political
economy (Pollock 1997; Earle 1997),
who demonstrate that human control of
the means of production can overcome
environmentally determined hardships
while at the same time efficiently laying
the basis for inequality among human
communities. The focus on economy as
not only a prime mover in the development
 Same same but different: a comparison of 6th millennium BCE communities in Southern Caucasia and Northwestern Iran

of early complexity but also as the major even world history, as Guillermo Algaze

ata
structuring force finds its clear expression (2007), following Charles Tilly (1984),
since the 1980s in the application of world has labelled it. Some scholars claim
system models to Bronze Age societies that macro-history is the only possible

iet
(Algaze 1993; Kohl 1987). approach towards archaeological enquiry
With the “spatial turn” since the anyway due to the altogether patchy

ev
late 1980s, the departure from static nature of the archaeological record (Kohl
natural preconditions towards a new 2008). Macro-history takes a bird’s eye
understanding of human – landscape perspective on large geographical units

n
interaction has allowed to integrate the that acknowledges environment and

sio
two sides of the debate into a more coherent economic conditions but leaves only
set of arguments (Johnson 1980; Carr little space for individual human action
1984; Banning 1997; Brück, Goodman and response vis-à-vis environmental

u
1999; Wilkinson 2005). Environment precondition and has hence to resolve

iff
has since regained status as a context for to describe anonymous feedback or
the development of human societies, not multiplier effects or talk about emulation
only forming a favorable background and
.D competition. Macro-history
or a stage but providing the mould in also emphasizes the effect of elites as
which the evolution of human societies decision makers over the lives of less
unfolds (for example, Düring 2011). In visible non-elites. In a macro-historical
18

this perspective, material preconditions perspective, divergent trajectories that

remain decisive for the success or failure of unfold in different regions or social
/20

any path taken by human communities. fields can become confounded and their
An immanent determinism is one of the explanatory power blurred. An alternative
major criticisms raised against some of to macro-histories could therefore
1

the best-selling models published over the be micro-histories that allow tracing
5/1

last two decades, from Jared Diamond’s individual pathways individuals, house
“Guns, germs and steel” (Diamond communities and sites, representative of
1999) to more closely focussed regional the usually overlooked non-elites, in a
0

studies (Algaze 2007). As is proposed more detailed way.

in the following, the combined analysis Micro-history is an approach that
re

of environmental conditions, human- is based on the detailed observation of

created landscapes and social behaviour small units. As a research perspective it
uto

offers instead a fresh perspective towards goes back to historical studies focussing
understanding individual pathways to on individual small events or lives as
complexity. burning glasses for wider social history
aa

(for a compilation of the current state

macro-history and micro-regional of the discipline, see contributions
histories in Magnússon, Szíjártó 2013). In
zz

archaeology, this can be aspects of

To get a grip on the active human individual life-histories (Kenoyer et alii
Bo

behaviour side of the argument, high 2013; Frei et alii 2015) or histories of
resolution data are needed that reach individual households or of individuals
beyond the level of macro-history or therein; household archaeology is by now

57
 Helwing, Aliyev
an established field that allows shaping
localized and bottom-up perspectives
onto cultural development (Hendon
2007; Özbal 2012). Each trajectory
described at the level of individuals or
small groups vis-à-vis larger units can
provide proxies for the reconstruction
of prototypical human action through
generalization.
In the following we plan to take
a micro-historical approach not at
households but at individual sites.
This is a step up in scale of the looking
glass from the well-defined household,
but the highly patchy and preliminary
nature of the data record advises such a
widening of perspective. By looking at
the micro-history of individual small
sites, we can attempt to trace variations
of relevance for identifying hidden or
18
invisible cultural traditions. Instead of
unilinear generalizations, site-specific
/20
micro-histories can lend themselves
to comparative approaches. Instead of
the broad brush of generalizing macro-
1
history, different pathways taken by
individual communities can be sketched
5/1
out and there are significant differences to
become visible on close comparison. This
is the venue where human agency can be
0
acknowledged that would otherwise be
blurred over (Emirbayer, Goodwin 1994).
re
Micro-histories hence not only provide
proxies for macro-history but are valuable
uto
in themselves since they open a venue on
individual tracks beyond generalization.
aa
contact and cooperation as
specifically human strategies
zz
Among the most powerful adaptive
aspects of human behavior is the
Bo
capability to communicate and cooperate
at a level beyond the immediate advantage
58
of the individual and its closest kin
ata
(Donald 1991; Dunbar 2007; Carballo
et alii 2012). From the very moment
when previously foraging communities
iet
settled down, a subsequent increase in
population combined with a decrease in
ev
mobility was the consequence (Bocquet-
Appel, Bar-Yosef 2008). This required
new technologies of social engineering
n
to mediate contact and communication
sio
within and between these new large
groups.
In borrowing from other fields like
u
sociobiology but also philosophy and
sociology (Dennett 2007), cooperation
iff
and social skills, and especially modes to
manage and/or manipulate these, have
.D
recently received increased attention
as social technologies and successful
means of adaptation especially since
the beginning of the Neolithic but most
probably long before. Possible strategies
are the creation of socially coherent groups
through techniques that reinforce group
identity and cohesion such as rituals,
collective events or memorial practices,
and the formation of communication
structures (see, for example, Watkins
2016). Networks organized along the lines
of age and gender, but also as interest and
professional groups emerged that served
as the vectors on which communication
and information travelled alongside
material items. “Nested networks”, as
Trevor Watkins (Watkins 2008) has
called his model of communication
systems in the early Neolithic, served to
spread knowledge beyond the boundary
of the immediate groups to others,
strangers, who were nevertheless tied
into the network. Instead of networks,
Philip Kohl has suggested the concept
of “shared social fields” as an alternative
to acknowledge the fuzzy and blurred
 Same same but different: a comparison of 6th millennium BCE communities in Southern Caucasia and Northwestern Iran
boundaries of the communicating social
entities (Kohl 2008).
No matter how they are labelled, such
communication networks or shared social
fields can archaeologically be traced
through various material indicators:
on the one side are materials that are
foreign to the area where archaeologists
find them; on the other side shared
knowledge indicates shared habitus.
While the concept of habitus (Bourdieu
1972) applies to all fields of human life
including the immaterial, they leave
archaeologically best visible traces in the
sphere of material, subsistence habits and
craft production, where the use of different
technologies and production habits can
be deduced successfully. Mapping out of
local and foreign material, techniques,
and styles, enables archaeologists to
18
reconstruct social practices in a detailed
way. They have thus a probate analytical
/20
tool at their command that allows them
to draw conclusions on distance and
proximity within networks of close
1
and distant shared fields, and to trace
individual developments at the micro-
5/1
level so that the impact rate of specific
contact experiences can become apparent.
0
tracing micro-histories in the 6th
mill. BCE
re
In what follows we present two micro-
uto
historical studies from two neighboring
regions in a comparative perspective.
One is a settlement sequence established
aa
some 40 years ago on the basis of detailed
excavation at Hajji Firuz Tappe in
zz
Northwestern Iran, where a multilayered
Neolithic settlement sequence was
exposed within the larger framework of
Bo
the Hasanlu Project’s regional studies
(Voigt 1976, 1983). The second is based
on new data from fieldwork in the South
ata
Caucasian Mil Plain (most recently,
Helwing et alii 2017). The two areas seem
to have been in contact during the 6 th
iet
mill. BCE, however both areas embarked
on different pathways of development.
ev
They are indeed about 350 km apart from
each other as the crow flies and contact
between the regions was possible through
n
natural passageways through either the
sio
Araxes Valley or along the Caspian
littoral.
u
introduction to the region: the
iff
solduz valley in northwestern
iran and the mil plain in south
caucasia
.D
The research areas in northwestern Iran
and in the south Caucasian lowland (fig. 1)
are among the most understudied regions
all over southwestern Asia. Their location
in different modern political spheres has
had a lasting effect on the opportunities
and strategies of research (Azarnoush,
Helwing 2005; Lyonnet, Guliyev 2010),
and it remains a difficult task to compare
the cultural development in the two
neighboring regions. Nevertheless, such
a comparison is useful since it opens
new perspectives on minor and major
differences in the various trajectories of
cultural development.
In Iran, archaeological research has
come to a halt almost four decades ago
with the Iranian revolution, thus at a time
when processual archaeology was at its
height. Data excavated before that are
relevant to the period under discussion
here derive largely from the 1960s
Hajji Firuz excavations in the Solduz
valley (Voigt 1983), from some smaller
soundings in the neighborhood of Hajji
Firuz such as Dalma Tepe (Hamlin 1975)
59
 Helwing, Aliyev

ata
iet
n ev
u sio
iff
.D
18

Fig. 1 – Map of the region indicating location of the two study areas and other sites mentioned.
/20

and some unwarranted layers touched reliable radiocarbon-based chronology

1

during excavation of Chalcolithic and and allows to locate the beginning of

5/1

Bronze Age sites, for example in Yanik labor division in craft production, with
Tappe (Burney 1964). Surveying work first signs of standardization and serial
in this region has so far hardly reached production already in the 5th mill. BCE.
0

beyond some tell-spotting expeditions (Fazeli Nashli, Matthews 2011; Fazeli

in the 1960s (Solecki, Solecki 1973; Nashli et alii 2010), into the transitional
re

Solecki 1999; Swiny 1975; Tala’i 1983; Chalcolithic.

Voigt 1983: 279-282) and again since The second area under scrutiny is
uto

2000 (Alibaigi, Khosravi 2007). Further the Mil Plain in the south Caucasian
information can be gained from recent Republic of Azerbaijan (Narimanov
excavations e. g. in Tappe Khaleseh in the 1987; Kiguradze 2001a, 2001b; Lombard,
aa

Abhar Rud Basin (Valipour et alii 2013) Chataigner 2004; Lyonnet 2007;
and in Ahrendjan Tepe in the Salmas Plain Badalyan et alii 2007; most recently:
(for a summary: Ajorloo 2016) and from Helwing et alii eds. 2017) where fieldwork
zz

new theoretically informed fieldwork. is underway since 2009. In South

The ambitious survey and dating project Caucasia, major methodological advances
Bo

in the Tehran and Qazvin plains (most in archaeological practice, including the
recently, Fazeli Nashli et alii 2013; see large-scale application of information
also Pollard et alii 2013) provides a more technology and the development of new

60
 Same same but different: a comparison of 6th millennium BCE communities in Southern Caucasia and Northwestern Iran

analytical tools, had been missed out as patchy and unbalanced research coverage

ata
they occurred during the collapse of the of the areas under discussion must be kept
Soviet Union and subsequent restructuring in mind. First sedentary occupation in both
efforts. This poses a major challenge for the highlands of northwestern Iran and in

iet
new research in the region. A second the South Caucasian lowlands is attested
challenge for a comparative approach around 6000 BCE or shortly before.

ev
is that archaeological interpretation in These pottery Neolithic occupations
the Republic of Azerbaijan is still firmly (Voigt, Dyson 1992; Fazeli Nashli et
rooted in cultural materialism – as applies alii 2013) appear equipped with features

n
to almost all research in former Soviet characteristic for the fully developed
“Neolithic package” (Çilingiroğlu 2005).

sio
republics (Lyonnet, Guliyev 2010; Sagona
2010). The situation is slowly beginning A migration of farmers/herders from the
to change, and together with some lowlands southwest of the Zagros to the

u
recent collaborative research projects by Solduz Valley has therefore been postulated
colleagues from France and the US (Marro (Voigt 1983: 166, 324), whereas the early

et alii 2011; Bakhshaliyev et alii 2017;
Ristvet et alii 2012; Guliyev, Nishiaki
2012), our own fieldwork in the Azerbaijan
Mil Plain1 is an attempt to establish
modern field methodology together with
18
theoretically informed interpretation in
an area where the existence of a Neolithic
/20
iff
sedentary communities of the southern
Caucasus present a complex mosaic of
.D
influences from various regions of Upper
Mesopotamia. Like the northwest Iranian
examples, the sites appeared without visible
predecessors with a full set of domesticated
animals and plants. However, the internal

occupation altogether had not been dynamics of settlement in south Caucasia

recognized until a few years ago (Helwing still remain poorly understood, and any
et alii 2017). statement on the involvement or not
1

of local forager groups is premature.

macro-trends in 6th mill. bce south Epi-Palaeolithic/Mesolithic occupation
5/1

caucasus and northwestern iran before 6000 BCE is attested, albeit rarely,
for example in the Armenian mountains
A general sketch of cultural development (Chataigner et alii 2014; Varoutsakis 2015),
0

throughout the 6th millennium BCE – a while no such evidence is reported so far
macro-history – serves here as a backdrop for the uplands around Hajji Firuz (Voigt
re

to the subsequent analysis, although the 1983: 281).

uto

1 Research in the Mil Plain is part of the interdisciplinary German-French research projects “Ancient
aa

Kura” (2010-2012) and “Kura in Motion!” (2013-2015) carried out by CNRS Paris and DAI Berlin in
cooperation with the National Academy of Sciences Azerbaijan, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography
and the Otar Lordkipanidze Center of Archaeology at the Georgian National Museum, supported by Deutsche
zz

Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG and the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique ANR. The
Mil Plain data used here represent the southeastern end of the three fieldwork foci along the Middle Kura
course. This project part is directed jointly by Barbara Helwing (DAI Berlin) and Tevekkül Aliyev (Academy
Bo

of Sciences Baku). For the purpose of this paper, insight contributed by Andrea Ricci (Survey), Lisa Shillito
(micromorphology) and Norbert Benecke (palaeozoology) is gratefully acknowledged. The basic idea was
first presented in 2011 in Chicago at the conference “Pathways to Power”, which provided valuable feedback
and stimulating discussions.

61
 Helwing, Aliyev
The villages established around 6000
BCE in the Iranian highlands and in
South Caucasia existed as small-scale self-
sustained agricultural communities based
on small household units, as exemplified
in Hajji Firuz (Voigt 1983). They used
painted pottery that marks them out as
part of a wider coiné of shared ceramic
painting styles in the Zagros Mountains
(Helwing, Aliyev 2017). In the Zagros
foothills, the 6th mill. BCE brings a new
development of communal activity visible
when single sites seem to specialize on
the collection of materials for centralized
storage. Communal storage facilities are a
major feature in Hassuna sites of northern
Iraq (Balossi Restelli 2001; Youkanna
1997). Umm Dabaghiyah in Northern
Iraq is interpreted as a specialized
settlement and a central collecting
18
point for animal hides (Kirkbride 1974).
Other sites, mostly related to the Central
/20
Mesopotamian Samarra traditions, show
evidence for the creation of artificial,
boundary-enforcing constructions,
1
such as ditches or walls (Youkanna
1997; Oates 2013). The highlands of
5/1
northwestern Iran, however, seem not to
have participated in any of these larger
trends and kept to a village economy
0
based on individual households without
any visible larger building enterprises or
re
signs of community specialization. For
this reason, the excavator considered Hajji
uto
Firuz a conservative community. We will
next take a closer look at this evidence.
aa
a close-up of the neolithic in the
solduz valley
zz
The Solduz Valley of northwestern
Iran is a small river plain at an elevation
Bo
of c. 1300 m asl. It is the location where
one of the shortest possible routes crosses
62
the Zagros mountains to the highland
ata
plateau of Central Iran. Here, earliest
sedentary occupation appears towards
the end of the 7th mill. BCE with the
iet
Pottery Neolithic occupation at Hajji
Firuz (Voigt 1983). Since no previous
ev
Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic or Aceramic
Neolithic settlement is attested in the
region, the origin of this occupation may
n
be the migration of farmers and herders
sio
from the areas of primary neolithization
in the Hilly Flanks of the Fertile Crescent
(Voigt 1983: 166, 281, 324). The Hajji
u
Firuz region can be reconstructed as a
seasonal wetland with patches of marshes
iff
and areas that were seasonally flooded: a
favorable environment for incipient cereal
.D
agriculture in a location of seasonal run-
off.
The excavated site Hajji Firuz is the
key site for the Solduz Valley Neolithic.
In this region, sedentary villages were
apparently inhabited over a considerable
span of time, during which houses were
reconstructed one after the other, so
that over time settlement layers formed
shallow settlement mounds. Within the
small Solduz Valley Plain, another six
mounded sites were registered during
survey besides Hajji Firuz (Voigt 1983:
280-281).
In Hajji Firuz, large-scale excavation
on the eastern slope of the site (all data
subsequently mentioned follow Voigt
1983) exposed a sequence of settlement
debris with 18 levels for the Neolithic
that are subdivided into 12 phases and
labelled L to A, including sub-phases,
from bottom to top. In terms of absolute
data, the Hajji Firuz sequence falls
into the first half of the 6th mill. BCE
(for a re-calibration of Hajji Firuz 14C
dates, see Tonoike 2009: 22-23, figs.
5-6). The sequence provides evidence
 Same same but different: a comparison of 6th millennium BCE communities in Southern Caucasia and Northwestern Iran
for some important changes in pottery
assemblages and mortuary practices
through time. According to the excavated
evidence (Voigt 1983: 31-70), Hajji Firuz
was a small village with freestanding
individual houses constructed from pisé.
These houses tend to be small, with one
or two rooms, or with internal division
walls, and each served one individual
household. Installations for storage and
food preparation are contained within
the rooms and are also found in the open
space adjacent to the houses. Within the
village, the houses are widely spaced. The
open areas between the houses seems to
have served for circulation and for both
individual and shared household activities
(Voigt 1983: 305-316).
Pottery in Hajji Firuz (Voigt 1983:
95-159) is hand made from wide coils of
18
clay with coarse organic temper. Besides
a standard buff ware occur sherds with
/20
geometric patterns in reddish paint. This
pottery tradition is later replaced by a
monochrome red-slipped burnished ware
1
whose percentages increase in the upper
levels since level D. The appearance of
5/1
red slipped monochrome ware correlates
with several other innovations: spindle
whorls (Voigt 1983: 169) and clay
0
figurines (Voigt 1983: 177) occur as new
classes of artifacts previously not attested.
re
Furthermore (Voigt 1983: 70-94), as of
level F, deceased adults and children were
uto
buried within the houses, usually in or
below the plaster bins that are part of
the installations inside the houses. It is
aa
possible that these burials were secondary
zz
2 M. Voigt (1983: 283) assigned the obsidian found in Hajji Firuz to the Lake Van area, but only a minor
Bo
sample could be investigated. Since, previously unknown obsidian sources have been reported from the Lesser
Caucasus, and from northwestern Iran (Niknami et alii 2010); the suitability of the Iranian obsidian for
the production of tools has not yet been tested; the Hajji Firuz material have since been attributed to major
sources in the Lesser Caucasus like Syunik (Barge et alii 2018).
burials or even ossuaries. In the older
ata
layers, occasional intramural burials were
interred individually under the houses’
floors.
iet
Data on subsistence were hardly
available from Hajji Firuz (Voigt
ev
1983: 275-278), but a mixed economy
combining wheat and barley cultivation
and caprine pastoralism together with
n
pig herding, gathering and hunting can
sio
be sketched out. The cereals could have
been used for the brewing of beer, and the
grapes collected to press wine (McGovern
u
et alii 1996), a possible hint at the regular
occurrence of social gatherings or feasts.
iff
The occurrence of spindle whorls
indicates a certain importance of textile
.D
production, possibly from caprids’ hair or
wool. Otherwise, these animals probably
served as meat supply (Gregg, Slater 2010:
851, fig. 6), while a use of dairy products
is likely but could so far not be confirmed
analytically. The hunting prey consisted
of some large mammals, such as red deer,
but the hunting of ground-based great
bustards (Voigt 1983: 278) was also a
regular activity. Fishing is attested as well
but played a minor role.
Some exotic materials were recorded
and indicate the eventual existence
of long-distance contacts: nodules of
obsidian (Voigt 1983: 221-223), then
macroscopically assigned to sources close
to Lake Van but possibly from sources
in the Lesser Caucasus or Iran,2 were
brought to the site. Also, serpentine
stone as a raw material was not available
locally, and the few shell artefacts (Voigt
63
 Helwing, Aliyev
1983: 262-263) also indicate a distant
procurement.
In summary, Hajji Firuz can be
reconstructed as a self-sufficient village
formed by a group of small, possibly
family-based households which seem
to have been the major social units at
the same time. There is no evidence for
collective or large-scale structures, such
as the communal storage houses of the
North Mesopotamian Hassuna-related
sites such as Umm Dabaghiyah (for
a synthesis, see Balossi Restelli 2001:
28-29; Kirkbride 1982: 13), at least
within the excavated area (but recall
that the central part of the site was not
excavated). Burials inside individual
houses furthermore indicate a strong
link between the houses and their
inhabitants. People pursued a mixed
18
subsistence economy that was adapted
to the various ecological niches of the
/20
region. Textile and basketry productions
are attested as well as the manufacture
of pottery, this later most probably
a household-based craft. It remains
1
to be tested if this reconstruction of
5/1
Neolithic life in Hajji Firuz as it was
achieved in the 1970s on the basis of
detailed analysis of all then available
0
parameters remains valid when new
field techniques and methodology are
re
applied to a regional study of the same
area.
uto
a neolithic micro-region in south
caucasia
aa
The Hajji Firuz evidence can be
compared to the Neolithic landscape of
zz
the South Caucasian Mil Plain in the
Republic of Azerbaijan, where fieldwork
Bo
since 2009 has yielded a set of new
data on the Neolithic occupation (most
64
recently, Helwing et alii 2017; Ricci
ata
et alii forthcoming) that has allowed
constructing a reliable cultural sequence
for the middle part of the 6th mill. BCE,
iet
while the end of the 6 th and the entire
5th mill. BCE remain elusive so far.
ev
Within the available sequence, major
alterations in the architectural makeup
of the sites as well as major changes in
n
pottery production and style are evident.
These transformations seem to correlate
sio
with a period of intensive contacts with
communities located further to the South
u
and the Southeast.
Our study area is a stretch of land
iff
along the Qaraçay river, a small
tributary descending from the Qarabakh
.D
mountains of the Lesser Caucasus into
the Kura stream. In the 6th mill. BCE, the
environment was probably characterized
by a wide meandering and gently
sloping river bed with extensive marches
and possibly lagoons as residues of the
withdrawal of the Caspian Sea. Intensive
surveying has yielded evidence for dense
Neolithic occupation along the rivers,
with some 22 sites located within a 7 km
stretch of the Qaraçay river (fig. 2; Ricci
2017). The sites are mainly located on
natural spurs on the upper terrace along
the river bed and are rather small, in the
range of 0.5 – 1 ha. Only one plateau
site (MPS 18) is larger and extends over
3.5 ha, but it cannot be assured that this
large plateau was all settled at once (Ricci
et alii forthcoming). The duration of the
individual occupations cannot yet be
determined with precision, but it seems
as if most residues derive from short-
term presences – one or two generations
– rather than from long-term continuous
settlement since there are hardly any
deposits built up on the sites. Exploration
proceeded with horizontal excavation on
 Same same but different: a comparison of 6th millennium BCE communities in Southern Caucasia and Northwestern Iran

ata
iet
n ev
u sio
iff
.D
18
/20

Fig. 2 – Map of the Qaraçay River area, Azerbaijan (map status 2013; © map A. Ricci, Ancient
Kura Project Archive; cp. Ricci et alii 2012).
1
5/1

Site Date Characteristics

BCE
MPS 4 5650- Semisubterranean house, ditches, monochrome pottery, blade industry
0

5500
MPS 5 5600-
re

Small cubicle like rooms, monochrome red slipped ware, blade industry
5500
uto

Kamiltepe 5500- Central platform, painted wares, exotic stones, blade and flake industry
5400

Tab. 1 – Comparative table detailing the individual sites in the Mil Plain.
aa

six distinct sites, Kamiltepe, MPS3 4, included in this study here (MPS 4, 5,
zz

MPS 5, MPS 18, MPS 103, MPS 124 Kamiltepe, see Table 1). Magnetometry
(Helwing et alii 2017) of which three are mapping was applied on all sites previous
Bo

3
MPS denominates all the surveyed sites in the Mil Plain and stands for Mil Plain Survey.

65
 Helwing, Aliyev

Solduz Mil Steppe

ata
Settlement location Stable, longterm Shifting, shortterm
Architecture Free-standing buildings Semi-subterranean dwellings

iet
(MPS 4); later phases individual
buildings (MPS 5)

ev
Building material Pisé in lower levels, mudbrick Mudbrick
from phase F onwards
Monumentality No evidence Causewayed structure (MPS 4);

n
later mudbrick platform

sio
(Kamiltepe)
Mortuary rites Intramural Little evidence
Animal bone Domesticates, major group Domesticates, major group

u
assemblages caprids; hunting for great bustards caprids; hunting for little bustards

iff
Sling pellets Not attested Many, in different size classes
Spindle whorls Attested from phase L onwards
.D Not attested

Tab. 2 – Comparison of Solduz Valley (Hajji Firuz) and Mil Steppe (Kamiltepe) Neolithic.
18

to excavation and on other sites with the ditches were moreover intersected by
/20

Neolithic materials yet untouched, and cross walls constructed from mudbrick
additional augering was used to test the so that sections of the ditches formed
depth and nature of cultural deposits compartment like units. The function
1

prior to excavation. Radiocarbon dating of the ditches is not yet known, but we
5/1

from the major excavated sites allows to can exclude their use for the channelling
establish a chronological order for the of water since their fill indicates a rapid
material (Helwing, Aliyev 2017: Table 2) fill-up process with soil. A morphological
0

and covers the first half of the 6 th mill. similarity with causewayed enclosures
BCE until 5400 BCE. such as they are known in Neolithic
re

The oldest excavated site is MPS 4, Europe can be suggested (Furholt,

radiocarbon dated to the first half of the Müller 2011), but this does not imply any
uto

6th millennium BCE. The site is invisible functional comparison.

on the surface: it is a flat field covered by So far, only one structure uncovered
artemisia steppe that was recognized as an on MPS 4 would have been suitable for
aa

archaeological site only during intensive domestic habitation. This is a partly

surveying when Neolithic pottery was subterranean round structure with
recognized in soil heaps from foxholes. walls reinforced by small hand-shaped
zz

Magnetometry survey detected concentric mudbricks. It housed a shell-bead

linear structures (fig. 3), and subsequent workshop where marine shells were
Bo

excavation proved that these patterns processed (Heit 2017) that must have been
relate to a system of concentric ditches. harvested from the shores of the Caspian
Enigmatic as this structure is in itself, Sea. Shell-bead production waste, drills

66
 Same same but different: a comparison of 6th millennium BCE communities in Southern Caucasia and Northwestern Iran

and hammers as well as residues of ochre the bricks used in the round building of

ata
were found on the successive floors of the MPS 4. The built structures are small,
structure. rather cubicles but houses, and contain
Material remains from site MPS 4 storage bins lined with rows of mudbrick.

iet
consist of a limited amount of monochrome Pottery is handmade and monochrome,
pottery, a lithic blade-based industry on the technology of fixing the basis and

ev
flint and obsidian, bone pendants, small of surface treatment differs slightly, as
clay objects in the shape of tetraeders red burnished surfaces were fashionable
or else and some figurine fragments. in MPS 5. This red burnished ware is

n
Among the domesticates significant in stylistically comparable to the red-slipped

sio
the Neolithic, ovicaprids and barley are ware from the later levels in Hajji Firuz.
attested (Benecke 2017; Decaix 2016). Furthermore, a variety of clay objects,
At approximately 500 m distance, including figurines, was found.

u
site MPS 5 provides exemplary insight In comparison, MPS 4 and MPS 5

iff
into life in another Neolithic hamlet differ in their general concept of site, but
at approximately the same time as the still have a lot in common: the building
ditches were used. The magnetometry material, the small size of the house units,
.D
image (Faßbinder et alii 2012: 24, fig. 31) and the monochrome pottery tradition. A
indicates small rectangular house units, development of MPS 5 styles of housing
and excavation confirmed the existence and ceramic manufacture out of the
18
of constructions made from mudbrick slightly older MPS 4 traditions is highly
that are in shape and size comparable to probable. Shortly after MPS 5 occupation
1 /20
0 5/1
re
uto
aa
zz
Bo

Fig. 3 – Mil Plain, Azerbaijan, site MPS 4: the ditch system (©Ancient Kura Project Archive;
photograph J. Krumnow).

67
 Helwing, Aliyev
18
Fig. 4 – Mil Plain, Azerbaijan, MPS 1 – Kamiltepe: the mudbrick construction in the centre of
the site (© Ancient Kura Project Archive; photograph B. Helwing).
/20
ended, the occupation of a third site –
1
Kamiltepe (MPS 1) manifests a rapid
change or cultural rupture with roots
5/1
outside of the Mil Plain. Kamiltepe is
a small mounded site on a spur above
the Qaraçay River at a distance of 700
0
m from MPS 5, and 800 m from MPS
4. It was occupied during the mid-sixth
re
millennium BCE around 5500-5400
uto
BCE, thus about one century after
the initial occupation at MPS 4 and
immediately after the MPS 5 occupation.
The Kamiltepe community constructed
aa
mudbrick houses with straight walls
and rectangular rooms. People herded
zz
sheep, goats and cattle and cultivated
barley. Additional supply came from
fishing and hunting – gazelle and little
Bo
bustard birds are frequent in the animal
bone assemblage (Benecke 2012). They
68
ata
iet
n ev
u sio
iff
.D
had also access to a variety of exotic raw
materials like obsidian, turquoise and
carnelian that were obtained through
long-distance contacts. Furthermore,
the Kamiltepe people produced and used
painted pottery of a type that is related to
the coiné of painted wares in the Zagros
Mountains and that is attested neither
before nor after the Kamiltepe occupation
in the region. And they built in the middle
of their settlement an enormous round
mudbrick construction (fig. 4), about 24
m in diameter and preserved to a height
of at least than 2.5 m. This structure is,
unfortunately, not preserved in its upper
part, so that the complete and original
layout of this construction remains
enigmatic. Our hypothesis is that this
structure was only a basis for something
either happening or standing on top of it.
 Same same but different: a comparison of 6th millennium BCE communities in Southern Caucasia and Northwestern Iran
If it had a flat surface, the construction
could be called a platform; but it could
also have been merely a support for
another building elevated above the level
of the surrounding houses.
What could have been the purpose
of the mudbrick massif? The limits of
preservation do not allow a definite
answer and the following reasoning
remains speculative: but excavation in
areas adjacent to the edge of the mud brick
construction yielded enormous amounts
of ash layers, apparently deposited in
successive short-term events. The ash
layers moreover contained lots of animal
bones, including bird and some fish, of
broken cooking pots, and every now and
then sling pellets and items of personal
adornment such as beads. These findings
would match with expectations on how
18
residues of extraordinary events like
collective rituals and commensality, in
/20
short, a feast, might look – good reasons
to reconstruct the Kamiltepe mudbrick
massif as a place for recurrent gatherings
1
or feasts (as proposed in Aliyev, Helwing
2009). Results of micromorphological
5/1
analysis (Shillito 2012) however point at
a different origin of the organic materials:
they may also be residues of construction
0
materials like branches, and some inorganic
traces were identified as clay plaster. This
re
may indicate a usage of the construction as
uto
a substructure that once bore a collective
storage facility, comparable to functionally
similar structures attested in Northern
Mesopotamian sites such as Umm
aa
Dabaghiyah and others. Both hypotheses
are supported by good arguments – and
zz
they may in fact be complementary, when
we hypothetically reconstruct a communal
storage facility on top that was also the
Bo
location of recurrent feasts. Whatever
the proper reconstruction may be, the
mudbrick platform construction remains
ata
an extraordinary testimony of collective
labor – combined with feasting and/or
storage, or not – and it marks out the site
iet
in an extraordinary act of place-making.
Altogether, the Mil Plain Neolithic
ev
during the first half of the 6th mill. BCE
begins with a first sedentary occupation
on the low river terraces with semi-
n
subterranean dwellings and a so far
sio
unparalleled ditch system, and with a
Neolithic mixed economy with farming,
animal husbandry and wild resources
u
from the beginning; material culture –
iff
monochrome pottery, shell beads, human
figurines, ochre, geometrical token allow
to correlate the assemblage to coeval sites
.D
in northwestern Iran. Within a century or
two, as indicated by the survey evidence,
preferences for the choice of settlement
locations changed: people moved up to
natural hills forming the higher terraces,
and the nature of the sites indicates rather
ephemeral, shifting occupation. There is
evidence for collective building efforts in
the construction of the ditches.
Another century later, Kamiltepe was
the focus of an extraordinary collective
construction project, and an elaborately
painted pottery correlates with this
effort. What may be the reasons for
these extraordinary and rapid changes
in pottery traditions and what created
the necessity for such a collective labor
organisation? Many elements of the
Kamiltepe occupation appear foreign in
the region and point to influence from or
contact with communities of the Zagros
painted wares coiné.
This is now the moment where the
larger plateau site MPS 18, now also called
Qarabel Tepe (Ricci et alii in prep.), comes
into the picture. This site was occupied,
possibly intermittedly, for about 300
69
 Helwing, Aliyev
years, and yielded both monochrome
and painted ware, showing a close stylistic
affiliation with what we know from Hajji
Firuz in northwestern Iran. MPS 18
seems to span the transition from MPS
4 to Kamiltepe and thus fills the gap in
the local sequence. In this perspective,
the Kamiltepe painted ware most likely
represents an offshot of the painted Hajji
Firuz tradition, whereas the monochrome
wares indicate a link with the Caucasian
Shomutepe-Shulaveris tradition.
At the current state of knowledge, the
introduction of painted pottery styles
into a region like the Mil Plain that so
far had used strictly monochrome wares
seems to be induced by contact with
northwestern Iran where the Hajji Firuz
tradition was in full blow. Within the
wider region, cultural connections can
18
be traced through stylistic comparisons
to other neighboring regions: with the
/20
Late Neolithic II painted traditions of the
Qazvin/Tehran Plain (Fazeli Nashli et alii
2013); with the Late Neolithic traditions
1
around the southern Caspian coast and
sites like Sang-e Chakhmagh (Masuda
5/1
1984 with older bibliography; Masuda
2013), and with the oasis locations of
Turkmenistan and the Late Djeitun
0
tradition (Hiebert 2003; Boroffka,
Kurbanov 2015; Masson 1961). But also,
re
at a more general scale, with the painted
pottery traditions of Late Hassuna/Late
uto
Samarra in Northern Iraq and later Halaf
in Northern Syria and Turkey (Oates
2013). This later Halaf /later Samarra
aa
period is generally characterized by an
intensification of supraregional networks,
zz
especially through the reestablishing of
obsidian circulation between the southern
Caucasus and northern Mesopotamia
Bo
(Chataigner, Gratuze 2014; Barge et
alii 2018). Obsidian procurement for
70
the Mil Plain sites can by now been
ata
reconstructed and indicates supply from
several of the Lesser Caucasus sources,
in particular from Syunik, Gegham and
iet
Gutansar (Astruc et alii 2012). Further
evidence for long distance raw material
ev
procurement networks is the usage of
semiprecious stones like carnelian and
especially turquoise, materials which were
n
also found at Kamiltepe.
sio
At the same time, comparisons with
contemporary Neolithic occupations in
other regions of South Caucasia are difficult
u
to draw. The typical South Caucasian
Shomutepe-Shulaveris Neolithic has
iff
its main area of distribution along the
middle Kura River. With its round house
.D
compounds and monochrome wares with
occasional plastic decoration, its obsidian
and its rich bone industry, Shomutepe-
Shulaveris allows only few comparisons.
But as the exotic materials in Aruchlo
(Hansen, Mirtskhulava 2017) and other
places indicate, these sites participated in
the raw material circulation networks just
as well.
To sum up the archaeological evidence
for the Mil Plain, we can reconstruct a
Neolithic settlement system along the
Qaraçay River that consists of subsequently
occupied sites preferably located on
natural elevations. Characteristic is a
monochrome, partly red burnished ware
that shows no immediate relation to the
Caucasian Neolithic of the Shomutepe-
Shulaversis type. Occasional features
of plastic decoration observed in the
shape of incised and impressed motives
seem to foreclose the Dalma tradition of
fifth millennium B.C.E. northwestern
Iran (Hamlin 1975), but are older.
This trajectory was interrupted when
shortly after 5500 BCE, contact with
Hajji Firuz related communities lead to
 Same same but different: a comparison of 6th millennium BCE communities in Southern Caucasia and Northwestern Iran
the adoption of new pottery styles with
painted motifs called Mil Steppe Painted
Ware (Narimanov 1987; Helwing, Aliyev
2017). They thrived on and evolved in the
Mil Plain, independently from the Hajji
Firuz prototypes, whereby the original
Hajji Firuz patterns became less and less
discernible. The group or groups engaged
in the production of the Mil Steppe
Painted Ware at the same time developed
habits of collective construction and
possibly storage.
During the heydays of Neolithic
occupation in the Qaraçay River valley
a period of intensified long-distance
contact began around 5500 B.C.E.
One result was the adoption of pottery
painting in a region previously adhering
to a monochrome tradition, and that
adoption was probably triggered by
18
the Hajji Firuz model. One other
result seems to have been the necessity
/20
for the Kamiltepe group to engage in
collective work over a longer period,
thereby marking out a place in an area
1
that for centuries was already occupied
by a different Neolithic tradition. The
5/1
encounter between two markedly
different traditions of Neolithic way of
life – whatever the dynamics – seems to
0
have triggered the necessity to collaborate
in visible building projects. Shortly after
re
5400 B.C.E., the occupation ceased and
uto
after 5300 BCE there is no more evidence
for settlement in the Mil Plain. While
on the Iranian plateau, a seemingly
smooth transition to the Chalcolithic
aa
can be stated, we have no such evidence
from our working area. It remains to
zz
be tested if the apparent lack of late 6 th
and 5th millennium BCE occupation is
a historical reality or not. If that is the
Bo
case, we will have to search for triggers in
a changing surrounding, and we intend
to search further for possible changed
ata
adaptations to new conditions.
comparison of the two regions
iet
The south Caucasian Mil Plain and
ev
the northwest Iranian Solduz Valley
are closely comparable in terms of
ancient environment – both regions
n
provide habitats with highly variable
sio
ecozones that reach from lake or lagoon
to marshland, arable soils and uplands.
They share their preference for seasonally
u
flooded marshland with other hotspots
iff
of early Neolithic occupation, like the
Konya Plain in Turkey (most recently,
Collins et alii 2018). Furthermore, a
.D
close relation between the two regions is
evident in terms of subsistence, and in
the pottery styles of the later sites in the
Mil Plain. However, their developmental
trajectories throughout the 6th mill. BCE
expose some important differences (Table
2). At the large scale, the most obvious
is evidently the difference in settlement
behavior: the Mil Plain populations
shifted frequently between settlement
locations on elevations above the river
valley, whereas Hajji Firuz settlers used
the same location over several centuries,
as seems to have been common practice
in that region, since no short term
settlement sites were detected during
surveys. Secondly, the construction
principles are markedly different: while
the Hajji Firuz houses develop as free-
standing buildings from the beginning,
the Mil Plain settlers first dwell in semi-
subterranean structures, as if techniques
for the construction of standing walls
were not known there. Only later appear
small individual houses in Kamiltepe,
where they are so far attested only in
small apertures (Helwing, Aliyev 2009:
71
 Helwing, Aliyev
fig. 10), and in MPS 5. Another major
difference is the building material: in
the Mil Plain sites, mudbricks were used
since the earliest documented occupation,
whereas Hajji Firuz constructions consist
of pisé. Most striking is, however, the
unique collective building program of
the Kamiltepe mudbrick platform that
finds no equivalent in Hajji Firuz, where
nothing like a communal building has
been uncovered. Further differences
concern subsistence issues: both areas
yielded animal bone assemblages with a
considerable amount of bird bones, great
bustard in Hajji Firuz, little bustard in
Kamiltepe. However, only Kamiltepe
yielded sling pellets as possible hunting
weapons. In the field of handicraft and
subsistence, one obvious difference is
the use of spindle whorls that is attested
18
in Hajji Firuz in the upper layers but
not in the Mil Plain, not even in the
/20
clearly domestic site MPS 5. Despite the
obvious similarities between the two
areas, these differences indicate that
1
the two populations pursued different
lifestyles and followed separate tracks of
5/1
development.
The major differences evident in the
concept of habitations in the Solduz
0
Valley and in the Mil Plain may indicate
that both regions were inhabited by
re
populations that derive from a different
background: the Neolithic settlers of
uto
Hajji Firuz could indeed be migrants
from the western Zagros foothills who
arrived in the highlands equipped with
aa
the full set of Neolithic technology, as
has long ago been suggested by M. Voigt
zz
(Voigt 1983: 166, 324). The Mil Plain
population however seems to stem from
different origins and could represent
Bo
even at least two different roots: in the
earlier sites, location and habitation
72
concepts seem to be closer linked to the
ata
early Neolithic of the central southern
Caucasus with the Shulaveri-Shomutepe
type occupation, whereas the later sites
iet
show a stronger connection with the
painted pottery coiné to which also Hajji
ev
Firuz belongs. Differences in hunting
techniques were observed that may
even derive from local hunter gatherer
n
traditions. Slings were frequent in the
sio
Mil Plain, while the Hajji Firuz farmers
must have used different techniques to
course birds. One more difference is
u
the early adoption of spinning in the
later phases of Hajji Firuz, linked to the
iff
availability of fibre materials, be they
wool, goat hair or flax, that seem not to
.D
have spread to the Mil Plain yet at this
point in time.
Any further interpretation of the
differing patterns in the Solduz Valley
and Mil Plain developments remain
highly speculative at this point. But it is
beyond doubt that the Mil Plain shifting
settlements indicate a high degree of
flexibility with regard to the settlement
location. Reasons why this strategy was
adopted remain unknown: one possible
reason could be a dynamic group strategy
that advocated regular fissions within
the mother group or families that led to
the movement of parts of the population
(Akkermans, Schwartz 2003: 152;
Bernbeck 2013; Frangipane 2013). Regular
short-distance shifting of settlement
similar to the pattern observed in the
Mil Plain is a characteristic of the North
Mesopotamian Neolithic (Akkermans
1993, 165; 249; Bernbeck 2008). Other
reasons could be an over-exploitation of
resources nearby – a reason that seems
however less likely given the rich natural
surroundings of the Qaraçay Valley – , but
other motives are equally conceivable. In
 Same same but different: a comparison of 6th millennium BCE communities in Southern Caucasia and Northwestern Iran
any case is the difference to the steady
continuity of the Hajji Firuz settlement
striking, where cycles of subsequent house
construction and the tradition to bury
dead ancestors within the houses point to
a strong adherence to specific locations.
Finally, the Mil Plain stands out
through the detection of collaborative
construction projects. Kamiltepe with
its large mudbrick structure is a striking
example for such a large cooperation
effort. As long as the function of the
structure remains unknown, it would
be premature to draw conclusions as to
its meaning, but the group as a whole
must have had an overriding interest
in its construction. No matter what its
function truly was, projects of this scale
must have had a re-enforcing effect on
group cohesion (Zeder, Smith 2009: 685).
18
Possibly, the creation of the complex ditch
system in MPS 4 can even be regarded
/20
as a predecessor for this collective effort
(Helwing, Aliyev 2014). These two
constructions represent the pathway that
1
the Mil Plain populations chose as their
social strategy that differs markedly from
5/1
the Hajji Firuz tradition.
The cultural rupture manifest in the
Kamiltepe occupation in comparison to
0
earlier Neolithic sites in the region can
cautiously be interpreted as evidence for
re
an encounter of two different traditions
in the Mil Plain. The necessity to mark
uto
out space and identity through large-scale
construction projects lead to increased
collaboration visible in the Kamiltepe
aa
platform. Culture contacts and the
encounter with strangers would thus have
zz
been driving forces behind this strategy. As
a hypothesis, we can interpret these efforts
to organize a complete community into
Bo
collaborative work as first steps towards
complexity. This perspective forms no
contradiction to materialistic models that
ata
hold the abundance of natural resources
and transportation possibilities to be
decisive for the formation and development
iet
of early complexity (e.g. Algaze 2008).
But in order to make these conditions
ev
effective, innovations in the realm of social
technology need to combine with favorable
conditions. Neither geography nor climate
n
just so trigger internal differentiation or
sio
competition. But contact with others – no
matter which specific mode of contact,
peaceful or martial, – most probably, can
u
do this.
There are now good reasons to
iff
consider the initial Mil Plain Neolithic
as result of a secondary neolithisation
.D
induced through contact with established
Neolithic communities further south
and northwest, and potentially even
the migration of such groups. In a
second step, increased communication
is evident from the growing circulation
of materials such as non-local materials
like obsidian and other minerals as
well, and the spreading of painted
pottery styles indicates intensified
contact with northwestern Iran. In a
second phase, the appearance of the
painted wares concurs directly with the
large-scale construction projects. This
coincidence, striking as it is, could hint
at the necessity to create lasting markers
of group identity at the moment where
the various communities inhabiting the
Mil Plain were increasingly in contact
with neighbours close and far. In the
Solduz Valley, the situation seems to
have been less turbulent and thus also
more sustainable over time. Throughout
the stratigraphic sequence we can trace a
continuous incremental development of
house forms and ceramic styles growing
increasingly complex over time.
73
 Helwing, Aliyev
conclusions
We have demonstrated for the two
micro-cases under study that the two
regions, although closely comparable
in terms of environmental conditions,
embarked upon markedly different
pathways of development. Communities
in the Solduz Valley and in the Mil
Plain engaged very differently with the
landscape they inhabited, with longterm
steady settlement in Hajji Firuz and a
shifting occupation in the Mil Plain.
Furthermore, in the Mil Plain, contact
with communities to the south had a strong
and disruptive impact while the Hajji Firuz
region seems to have developed in a more
stable way. Ultimately, the Hajji Firuz
settlement grew increasingly complex over
time, while the Mil Plain communities
18
kept moving and disappeared from the
visible surface of the plain towards the
/20
end of the 6th millennium BCE. The
close-up perspective chosen in this study
allows identifying divergent behaviour of
1
ancient communities within an inhabited
landscape.
5/1
The integration of foreign models
of pottery decoration in Kamiltepe is
one example on how the experience of
0
encounter and exchange with foreign
culture was accommodated, without
re
yet knowing the underlying dynamics.
Possibly, painted wares were ostentatiously
uto
used for display during gatherings or
social visits, as has been assumed by
Olivier Nieuwenhuyse with regard to
aa
the approximately coeval painted Halaf
ware from Sabi Abyad (Nieuwenhuyse
2007). The new pottery painting
zz
fashion persisted in the Mil Plain only
for a limited period of time and was not
Bo
paralleled with emulation of other aspects
of life as they are attested further south:
74
hunting followed different strategies in
ata
Hajji Firuz and Kamiltepe, as did craft
production. Furthermore, social cohesion
was maintained in a different way: in the
iet
Mil Plain, collective construction projects
such as the ditch structures in MPS 4 and
ev
the mudbrick construction in Kamiltepe
attest to a focus on community that is so
far unique in the region. In Hajji Firuz,
n
to the contrary, individual small houses
sio
persisted and no large-scale buildings
were constructed. The small houses
indicate a different social organisation,
u
burials under the house floors point at
a strong relation between individual
iff
household and identity.
.D Within the wider picture, the specific
trajectory unravelled in the Mil Plain
and in particular in Kamiltepe seems at
first sight comparable to the communal
storage strategies of the Hassuna sites,
or recall the fortification character of
the Samarra ditches, walls or towers
such as in Choga Mami. Such collective
building projects are usually interpreted
as incipient steps towards a more complex
organisation within the communities
involved. But if this similarity endures
when more detailed parallels are drawn,
remains to be proved.
By adopting a micro-historical
perspec-tive onto two distinct small
settlement regions in the highlands
of the Zagros and beyond, a close-up
comparison between the Mil Plain
and the Neolithic of northwestern Iran
indicated important differences in the
individual trajectories unfolding in
each region. This adds nuance to the
more generalising culture historical
narratives and allows tracing divergent
strategies chosen in the two different
regions with regard to group cohesion
and organisation. We are still very
 Same same but different: a comparison of 6th millennium BCE communities in Southern Caucasia and Northwestern Iran
much at the beginning of developing an
understanding of these underexplored
regions, and all statements remain highly
hypothetical. But the potential of such
a micro-historical approach is high and
definitely worth pursuing further.
REFERENCES
AJORLOO B. 2016 - The Early Pottery
Neolithic Tradition of the Salmas Plain in
Azerbaijan, Northwestern Iranian Plateau’,
in The Neolithic of the Iranian Plateau. Recent
Research, K. Roustaei and M. Mashkour ed.,
Studies in Early Near Eastern Production,
Subsistence, and Environment 18, Berlin:
18
ex Oriente: 149-68.
AKKERMANS P.M.M.G. 1993 - Villages in
the Steppe : Later Neolithic Settlement and
/20
Subsistence in the Balikh Valley, Northern
Syria, Ann Arbor Mich.: International
Monographs in Prehistory.
1
AKKERMANS P.M.M.G., SCHWARTZ
G.M. 2003 - The Archaeology of Syria,
5/1
wN. Yoffee ed.. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
ALGAZE G. 1993 - The Uruk World System.
0
The Dynamics of Expansion of Early
Mesopotamian Civilization. Chicago, (IL):
re
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
– 2007 - The Sumerian takeoff, in Settlement
and society: Essays dedicated to Robert
uto
McCormick Adams, E.C. Stone ed., Ideas,
Debates and Perspectives, The Oriental
Institute of the University of Chicago,
aa
Chicago: 343-368.
– 2008 - Ancient Mesopotamia at the Dawn
of Civilization: The Evolution of an Urban
zz
Landscape, University of Chicago Press:
Chicago.
ALIBAIGI, S., KHOSRAVI S. 2007 - Tepe
Bo
Khaleseh: earliest Prehistoric Settlement
in Abharrud Basin (in Persian), Bastan
Pazhuhi 15: 35-47.
* The University of Sydney
ata
Department of Archaeology
barbara.helwing@sydney.edu.au
iet
** Institute if Archaeology and Ethnography,
Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences
tavakkul55@yahoo.com
n ev
sio
u
ALIYEV, T., HELWING B. 2009 - Kamiltepe
iff
in der Milebene. Archäologische
Untersuchungen 2009, Archäologische
Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 41: 23-
.D
45.
LAURENCE A., SAMZUN A., GRATUZE
B. 2012 - Preliminary Report on the Lithic
Industries of Kamiltepe and Mentesh Tepe’,
in B. Lyonnet et alii 2012: 169-77.
AZARNOUSH, M., HELWING B. 2005
- Recent Archaeological Research in Iran
- Prehistory to Iron Age’, Archäologische
Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 37: 189-
246.
BADALYAN R., LOMBARD P.,
AVETSIYAN P.S., CHATAIGNER C.,
CHABOT J., VILA E., HOVSEPYAN R.,
WILLCOX G., PESSIN H. 2007 - New
Data on the Late Prehistory of the Southern
Caucasus. The Excavations at Aratashen
(Armenia): Preliminary Report, in Les
cultures du Caucase (VIe - IIIe millénaires
avant notre ère). Leurs relations avec le Proche
Orient, B. Lyonnet ed., Éditions Recherche
sur les Civilisations. Paris: CNRS Éditions:
37-62.
BAKHSHALIYEV V., MARRO C. 2009 -
The Archaeology of Nakhichevan. Ten Years
of New Discoveries, Ege Yayınları: İstanbul.
BAKHSHALIYEV V., MARRO C.,
BERTHON R., GULIYEVA Z. 2017 -
Archaeological Excavation at the Settlement
Kültepe (2013-2016) (in Russian), in
Problems of the Archaeology of the Caucasus
and Near East. Neolithic-Late Bronze
75
 Helwing, Aliyev
Age. Dedicated to the 90th Anniversary of
the Famous Archaeologist, Corresponding
Member of the National Academy of Sciences
of Azerbaijan Ideal Hamid Oglu Narimanov
(1927-2006), N. A. Museibli ed., National
Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan Institute
of Archaeology and Ethnography, Baku:
26-41.
BARGE O., KHARANAGHI H.A., BIGLARI
F., MORADI B., MASHKOUR M.,
TENGBERG M., CHATAIGNER C. 2018
- Diffusion of Anatolian and Caucasian
Obsidian in the Zagros Mountains and the
Highlands of Iran: Elements of Explanation
in ‘Least Cost Path Models’. Quaternary
International 467: 297-322. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.quaint.2018.01.032.
BALOSSI RESTELLI F. 2001 - Formation
Processes of the First Developed Neolithic
Societies in the Zagros and the Northern
Mesopotamian Plain, Studi di Preistoria
Orientale 1, Università di Roma La
18
Sapienza: Roma.
BANNING E. B. 1997 - Spatial Perspectives on
Early Urban Development in Mesopotamia,
/20
in Urbanism in Antiquity: from Mesopotamia
to Crete,. W. E. Aufrecht, N. Mirau, S.
Gauley eds., University of Sheffield Press
Sheffield: 17-34.
1
BENECKE N. 2012 - Archaeozoology
5/1
and Animal Domestication in the
Circumcaspian Region, in B. Lyonnet et
alii 2012: 154-155.
– 2017 - Exploitation of Animal Resources in
0
Neolithic Settlements of the Kura Region
(South Caucasia), in B. Helwing et alii. eds.:
re
357-69.
BERNBECK R. 2008 - An Archaeology
uto
of Multi-Sited Communities, in The
Archaeology of Mobility, W. Hendrich, H.
Barnard eds., Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute
of Archaeology at UCLA: 128-43.
aa
– 2013 - Multi-Sited and Modular Sites in
the Halaf Tradition, in Interpreting the
Late Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia, O.
zz
P. Nieuwenhuyse, R. Bernbeck, P. M. M.
G. Akkermans, J. Rogasch eds., Papers on
Bo
Archaeology from The Leiden Museum of
Antiquities (PALMA) 9, Turnhout, Brepols:
51-62.
76
BOCQUET-APPEL J.-P., BAR-YOSEF O.
ata
2008 - The Neolithic Demographic Transition
and its Consequences, Springer: New York.
BOROFFKA N., KURBANOV A. 2015 - New
iet
Data on the Neolithic and Eneolithic of
Central Asia: Dashly Depe (Turkmenistan),
Miras 1/2015: 38-55.
ev
BOURDIEU P. 1972 - Esquisse d’une théorie
de la pratique, précédé de trois études
d’ éthnologie Kabyle, Droz: Genève.
n
BRÜCK J., GOODMAN M. 1999 -
Introduction: Themes for a Critical
sio
Archaeology of Prehistoric Settlement,
in Making Places in the Prehistoric World:
Themes in Settlement Archaeology, J. Brück,
u
M. Goodman eds., UCL Press, London:
iff
1-19.
BURNEY C.A. 1964 - The Excavations
.Dat Yanik Tepe, Azerbaijan, 1962: Third
Preliminary Report“, Iraq 26: 54-61.
BUTZER K.W. 1972 - Environment and
Archaeology. An Introduction to Pleistocene
Geography, Methuen: London.
CARBALLO D. M., ROSCOE P., FEINMAN
G. M. 2012 - Cooperation and Collective
Action in the Cultural Evolution of
Complex Societies’, Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory 21 (1): 98-133. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10816-012-9147-2.
CARR C. 1984 - The Nature of Organization
of Intrasite Archaeological Records and
Spatial Analytical Approaches, in Advances
in Archaeological Method and Theory, M.
Schiffer ed., Academic Press, New York:
103-211.
CHATAIGNER C., GRATUZE B. 2014 -
New Data on the Exploitation of Obsidian in
the Southern Caucasus (Armenia, Georgia)
and Eastern Turkey, Part 2: Obsidian
Procurement from the Upper Palaeolithic to
the Late Bronze Age’, Archaeometry 56 (1):
48–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12007.
CHATAIGNER C., BADALYAN R.,
ARIMURA M. 2014 - The Neolithic
of the Caucasus, Oxford Handbooks
Online, October. https://doi.org/10.1093/
oxfordhb/9780199935413.013.13.
CHILDE V.G. 1925 - The Dawn of European
Civilization, The History of Civilization.
Pre-History and Antiquity, K. Paul, Trench,
 Same same but different: a comparison of 6th millennium BCE communities in Southern Caucasia and Northwestern Iran
Trubner & Co. ltd.: London; A.A. Knopf:
New York.
– 1935 - New Light on the Most Ancient East.
The Oriental Prelude to European Prehistory,
Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner: London.
– 11948 - Man Makes Himself, Watts & Co:
London.
ÇILINGIRO ĞLU C. 2005 - The Concept
of ‚Neolithic Package: Considering its
Meaning and Applicability, Documenta
Praehistorica 32: 1-13.
COLLINS C., ASOUTI E., GROVE
M., KABUKCU C., BRADLEY L.,
CHIVERRELL R. 2018 - Understanding
Resource Choice at the Transition from
Foraging to Farming: An Application
of Palaeodistribution Modelling to the
Neolithic of the Konya Plain, South-Central
Anatolia, Turkey, Journal of Archaeological
Science 96: 57–72, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jas.2018.02.003.
DECAIX A. 2016 - Origin et évolution des
18
économies agricoles dans le sud du Caucase:
récherches archéobotaniques dans le
bassin Kuro-Araxes, PhD, Paris: Paris 1 -
/20
Sorbonne.
DENNETT D. C. 2007 - Breaking the Spell:
Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, Penguin
Books: London.
1
DIAMOND J. 1999 - Guns, Germs, and Steel:
5/1
The Fates of Human Societies, New York:
Norton.
DONALD M. 1991 - Origins of the Modern
Mind, Cambridge: Harvard University
0
Press.
DUNBAR, R.I.M. 2007 - The Social Brain
re
and the Cultural Explosion of the Human
Revolution, in Rethinking the Human
uto
Revolution: New Behavioural and Biological
Perspectives on the Origin and Dispersal of
Modern Humans, P. Mellars, K. Boyle, O.
Bar-Yosef, C. Stringer eds., McDonald
aa
Institute Monographs. Cambridge,
McDonald Institute for Archaeological
Research: 91-99.
zz
DÜRING B.S. 2011 - The Prehistory of Asia
Minor. From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to
Bo
Early Urban Society, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
EMIRBAYER, M., GOODWIN J. 1994
- Network Analysis, Culture, and the
ata
Problem of Agency, The American Journal
of Sociology 99 (6): 1411-1454.
FASSBINDER JÖRG, KOCH J., LINCK
iet
R., BECKER F. 2012 - Magnetometry
of Neolithic Sites in the Mil Plain of
Azerbaijan, in B. Lyonnet et alii. 2012: 18-
ev
31.
FAZELI NASHLI, H., BESHKANI A.,
MARKOSIAN A., ILKANI H., YOUNG
n
R. 2009 - The Neolithic to Chalcolithic
Transition in the Qazvin Plain, Iran:
sio
Chronology and Subsistence Strategies,
Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und
Turan 41: 1-22.
u
FAZELI NASHALI H., VIDALE M.,
iff
BIANCHETTI P., GUIDA G.,
CONINGHAM R. 2010 - The Evolution
of Ceramic Manufacture Technology
.D
during the Late Neolithic and Transitional
Chalcolithic Periods at Tepe Pardis, Iran,
Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und
Turan 42: 87-112.
FAZELI NASHLI H., MATTHEWS
R. 2011 - From subsistence to prestige
consumption: settlement, subsistence,
trade, and mortuary practices during the
Transitional Chalcolithic period on the
west-central plateau of Iran, Unpublished
paper presented at Conference Pathways to
Power – The Emergence of Political Authority
and Hierarchy in the 6th-5th Millennia
BC Near East: Comparative Perspectives,
Chicago, November 1-3, 2011.
FAZELI NASHLI H., CONINGHAM R.,
MARGHUSSIAN A., MANUEL M.,
AZIZI KHARANAGHI H., POLLARD
M. 2013 - Mapping the Neolithic
Occupation of the Kashan, Tehran and
Qazvin Plains, in The Neolithisation of
Iran: Patterns of Change and Continuity, R.
J. Matthews, H. Fazeli eds., Themes from
the Ancient Near East BANEA Publication
Series 3. Oxford, Oakville: Oxbow Books:
124-46.
FRANGIPANE M. 2013 - Societies without
Boundaries: Interpreting Late Neolithic
Patterns of Wide Interaction and Sharing
of Cultural Traits: The Case of the Halaf
Communities, in Interpreting the Late
77
 Helwing, Aliyev
Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia, O. P.
Nieuwenhuyse, R. Bernbeck, P. M. M.
G. Akkermans, J. Rogasch eds., Papers on
Archaeology from The Leiden Museum of
Antiquities (PALMA) 9, Turnhout, Brepols:
89-100.
FREI K. M., MANNERING U.,
KRISTIANSEN K., ALLENTOFT M.
E., WILSON A. S., SKALS I., TRIDICO
S., NOSCH M. L., WILLERSLEV E.,
CLARKE L., FREI R. 2015 - Tracing the
Dynamic Life Story of a Bronze Age Female,
Scientific Reports 5 (May): srep10431.
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep10431.
FURHOLT M., MÜLLER J. 2011 - The Earliest
Monuments in Europe - Architecture and
Social Structures (5000-3000 cal BC), in
Megaliths and Identities: Early Monuments
and Neolithic Societies from the Atlantic to
the Baltic, 3rd European Megalithic Studies
Group Meeting, Kiel University. Institut
für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der CAU Kiel
18
& Römisch-Germanische Kommission
Frankfurt a.M., by M. Furholt, F. Lüth,
J. Müller eds., Frühe Monumentalität und
/20
soziale Differenzierung 1, Bonn, Habelt:
15-32.
GREGG M. W, SLATER G. F. 2010 - A
New Method for Extraction, Isolation
1
and Transesterification of Free Fatty Acids
5/1
from Archaeological Pottery, Archaeometry
52 (5): 833-854. doi:10.1111/j.1475-
4754.2010.00518.x.
HAMLIN C. 1975 - Dalma Tepe, Iran 13:
0
111-128.
HANSEN S., MIRTSKHULAVA G.,
re
BASTERT-LAMPRICHS K., BENECKE
N., GATSOV I., NEDELCHEVA P.
uto
2006 - Aruchlo 2005-2006. Bericht über
die Ausgrabungen in einem neolithischen
Siedlungshügel, Archäologische Mitteilungen
aus Iran und Turan 38: 1-34.
aa
HANSEN S., MIRTSKHULAVA G.,
BASTERT-LAMPRICHS K., GÖRSDORF
J., NEUMANN D., ULLRICH M.,
zz
GATSOV I., NEDELCHEVA P. 2007 -
Aruchlo 2007. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen
Bo
im neolithischen Siedlungshügel, Archäo-
logische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 39:
1-30.
78
HANSEN S., MIRTSKHULAVA G. 2017 -
ata
Excavations in Aruchlo 2005-2014, in The
Kura Projects. New Research on the Later
Prehistory of the Southern Caucasus, Helwing
iet
et alii. eds., Archäologie in Iran und Turan
16. Berlin, Dietrich Reimer: 195-200.
HEIT I. 2017 - Die neolithische Muschel-
ev
perlenwerkstatt aus Fundstelle MPS
4. Archäologische und technologische
Untersuchungen, in The Kura Projects.
n
New Research on the Later Prehistory of the
Southern Caucasus, Helwing et alii. eds.,
sio
Archäologie in Iran und Turan 16. Berlin,
Dietrich Reimer: 73-123.
HELWING B., ALIYEV T., RICCI A.
u
2012 - Mounds and Settlements in the
iff
Lower Qarabakh - Mil Plain, Azerbaijan,
in Tells: Social and Environmental Space.
.D Proceedings of the International Workshop
“Socio-Environmental Dynamics over the Last
12,000 Years: The Creation of Landscapes II,
R. Hofmann, F.-K. Moetz, J. Müller eds.,
Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen
Archäologie 207, Bonn: 67-77.
HELWING B., ALIYEV T. 2014 - A
Monumental Neolithic? New Results
of the Ongoing Azerbaijanian-German
Investigations in the Mil Steppe, Azerbaijan,
in Proceedings of the 8th International
Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient
Near East, University of Warsaw. Volume 2,
Excavation and Progress Reports, Posters, P.
Bieli ński, M. Gawlikowski, R. Koliński, D.
Ławecka, A. Sołtysiak, Z. Wygna ńska eds.,
Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz: 247-57.
– 2017a - The Mil Steppe Painted Ware, in
Problems of the Archaeology of the Caucasus
and Near East. Neolithic-Late Bronze
Age. Dedicated to the 90th Anniversary of
the Famous Archaeologist, Corresponding
Member of the National Academy of Sciences
of Azerbaijan Ideal Hamid Oglu Narimanov
(1927-2006), N. A. Museibli ed., Baku,
National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan
Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography:
59-81.
– 2017b - Excavations in the Mil Plain
Sites, 2012-2014, in The Kura Projects.
New Research on the Later Prehistory of the
Southern Caucasus, Helwing et alii. eds.,
 Same same but different: a comparison of 6th millennium BCE communities in Southern Caucasia and Northwestern Iran
Archäologie in Iran und Turan 16. Berlin,
Dietrich Reimer: 11-42.
HELWING B., ALIYEV T., LYONNET
B., GULIYEV F., HANSEN S.,
MIRTSKHULAVA G. eds. 2017 - The Kura
Projects. New Research on the Later Prehistory
of the Southern Caucasus, Archäologie in
Iran und Turan 16. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.
HENDON J. 2007 - Living and Working
at Home: The Social Archaeology of
Household Production and Social Relations,
in Companion to Social Archaeology, L.
Meskell, R.W. Preucel ed., Oxford, Malden
Mass., Blackwell Publishing Ltd: 272-86.
HIEBERT F.T. 2003 - A Central Asian Village
at the Dawn of Civilization: Excavations
at Anau, Turkmenistan, Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Museum of
Archaeology and Anthropology.
JOHNSON G.A. 1980- Spatial Organization
of Early Uruk Settlement Systems, in
L’archéologie de l’Iraq, CNRS ed., Colloques
18
internationaux du C.N.R.S. Paris: Editions
du C.N.R.S.: 233-263.
KENOYER J. M., DOUGLAS PRICE T.,
/20
BURTON J. H. 2013 - A New Approach
to Tracking Connections between the Indus
Valley and Mesopotamia: Initial Results of
Strontium Isotope Analyses from Harappa
1
and Ur, Journal of Archaeological Science
5/1
40: 2286-97, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jas.2012.12.040.
KIGURADZE T. 2001a - Caucasian Neolithic,
in Europe, P. Peregrine, M. Ember eds.,
0
Encyclopedia of Prehistory. New York:
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers: 55-
re
76.
- 2001b - Caucasian Chalcolithic, in Europe,
uto
P. Peregrine, M. Ember eds., Encyclopedia
of Prehistory. New York: Kluwer Academic/
Plenum Publishers: 38-54.
KIRKBRIDE D. 1974 - Umm Dabaghiyah: A
aa
Trading Outpost?, Iraq 36: 85-92.
– 1982 - Umm Dabaghiyah, in Fifty Years of
Mesopotamian Discovery. The Work of the
zz
British School of Archaeology in Iraq 1932-
1982, J. Curtis ed., Hertford: British School
Bo
of Archaeology in Iraq: 11-21.
KOHL P. L. 1987 - The Use and Abuse of
Worlds System’s Theory: the Case of
Pristine West Asian State, in Advances in
ata
Archaeological Method and Theory, M.
Schiffer ed., San Diego, New York, Berkeley,
Boston, London, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto:
iet
Academic Press Inc.: 1-35.
– 2008 - Shared Social Fields: Evolutionary
Convergence in Prehistory and Contemporary
ev
Practice, American Anthropologist 110 (4):
495-506.
LOMBARD P., CHATAIGNER C. 2004
n
- Le Néolithique et le Chalcolithique en
Transcaucasie : l’exemple des bassins de la
sio
Kura et de l’Araxe, in Aux marges des grands
foyers du Néolithique. Périphéries débitrices
ou créatrices? Séminaire du Collège de France,
u
J. Guilaine ed., Paris, Errance: 61-84.
iff
LYONNET B. ed. 2007 - Les cultures du
Caucase (VIe - IIIe millénaires avant notre
.Dère). Leurs relations avec le Proche Orient,
Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
Paris: CNRS Éditions.
LYONNET B., GULIYEV F. 2010 -
Recent Discoveries on the Neolithic and
Chalcolithic of Western Azerbaijan, TÜBA-
AR, Turkish Academy of Sciences Journal of
Archaeology 13: 219-228.
LYONNET B., GULIEV F., HELWING
B., ALIYEV T., HANSEN S., MIRTS-
KHULAVA G. 2012 - Ancient Kura
2010-2011: The First Two Seasons of Joint
Field Work in the Southern Caucasus,
Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und
Turan 44: 1-189.
MAGNÚSSON S. G., SZÍJÁRTÓ I. 2013 -
What Is Microhistory? Theory and Practice,
Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
MARRO C., BAKHSHALIYEV V.,
ASHUROV S. 2011 - Excavations at
Ovcular Tepesi (Nakhchivan, Azerbaijan).
Second Preliminary Report: The 2009 -
2010 Seasons, Anatolica Antiqua 19: 53-
100.
MASSON V.M. 1961 - The First Farmers in
Turkmenia, Antiquity 35 (139): 203-213.
MASUDA S.-I. 1984 - The Excavations
at Tappeh Sang-e Caxmaq, Archiv für
Orientforschung 31: 209-212.
– 2013 - Chakhmaq: Investigations of a
Neolithic Site in Northeastern Iran, in R.
J. Matthews, H. Fazeli eds.: 201-40.
79
 Helwing, Aliyev
MATTHEWS R. J., FAZELI NASHLI H. eds.
2013 - The Neolithisation of Iran: Patterns of
Change and Continuity, Themes from the
Ancient Near East BANEA Publication
Series 3. Oxford, Oakville: Oxbow Books.
MCGOVERN P. E., GLUSKER D. L.,
EXNER L. J. 1996 - Neolithic Resinated
Wine, Nature 381: 480-481.
NARIMANOV I.G. 1987 - Kul’tura
Drevnejsego Zemledel’ Cesko-Skoto-
Vodceskoyo Naselenija Azerbajdzana.
NIEUWENHUYSE O. 2007 - Plain and
Painted Pottery: the Rise of Neolithic
Ceramic Styles on the Syrian and Northern
Mesopotamian Plains, Turnhout: Brepols.
NIKNAMI K.A., CHAYCHI AMIRKHIZ
A., GLASCOCK M.D. 2010 - Provenance
Studies of Chalcolithic Obsidian Artefacts
from near Lake Urmia, Northwestern Iran
using WDXRF Analysis, Archaeometry 52
(1): 19-30.
OATES J. 2013 - Samarran Issues, in
18
Interpreting the Late Neolithic of Upper
Mesopotamia, O. P. Nieuwenhuyse, R.
Bernbeck, P. M. M. G. Akkermans, J.
/20
Rogasch eds., Papers on Archaeology
from The Leiden Museum of Antiquities
(PALMA) 9, Turnhout, Brepols: 407-16.
ÖZBAL R. 2012 - The Challenge of Identifying
1
Households at Tell Kurdu (Turkey), in New
5/1
Perspectives on Household Archaeology, B. J.
Parker, C. P. Foster eds., Winona Lake,
Ind., Eisenbrauns: 321-46.
POLLARD A. M. , FAZELI NASHLI H.,
0
DAVOUDI H., SARLAK S., HELWING
B., SAEIDI ANARAKI F. 2013 - A New
re
Radiocarbon Chronology for the North
Central Plateau of Iran from the Late
uto
Neolithic to the Iron Age, Archäologische
Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 45: 27-50.
RICCI A. 2017 - Archaeological Landscape
Studies within the “Kura in Motion”
aa
Project: The 2012-2014 Field Activities, in
B. Helwing et alii eds.: 305-23.
RICCI A., D’ANNA M. B., HELWING B.,
zz
ALIYEV T., LAWRENCE D., forthcoming
- Human Mobility and Early Sedentism.
Bo
The Late Neolithic (Mid-Sixth Millennium
BC) Landscape of South-Western
Azerbaijan, Antiquity, forthcoming.
80
RICCI A., D’ANNA M. B., BAUDOIN E.,
ata
GUILBEAU D., HAMON C., DECAIX
A., BENECKE N., HELWING B.,
ALIYEV T., in prep. - The 2015 Field
iet
Season at Site MPS18, Mil Plain (SW
Azerbaijan), Archäologische Mitteilungen
aus Iran und Turan.
ev
RISTVET L., GOPNICK H., BAKHS-
HALIYEV V., LAU H., ASHUROV S.
G., BRYANT R., 2012 - On the Edge of
n
Empire: 2008 and 2009 Excavations at
Oğlanqala, Azerbaijan, American Journal
sio
of Archaeology 116 (2): 321-62.
SAGONA A. 2010 - Past and Present Directions
in the Archaeology of the Transcaucasus,
u
TÜBA-AR, Turkish Academy of Sciences
iff
Journal of Archaeology 13: 143-57.
SHILLITO L. 2012 - Preliminary
.DMicrostratigraphic Observations of Ash
Deposits and Architectural Materials at
Kamiltepe, Azerbaijan, in B. Lyonnet et
alii: 31-37.
SOLECKI R.L., SOLECKI R.S. 1973 - Tepe
Seavan, a Dalma Period Site in the Margavar
Valley, Azerbaijan, Iran, Bulletin of the Asia
Institute 3: 98-117.
SOLECKI R.S. 1999 - An Archaeological
Survey in Western Azarbaijan, Iran, in The
Iranian World. Essays on Iranian Art and
Archaeology presented to Ezat O. Negahban,.
A. Alizadeh, Y. Majidzadeh, S. Malek
Shamirzadi eds., Tehran, Iran University
Press: 28-43.
SWINY S. 1975 - Survey in North-West Iran,
1971, East and West 25 (1-2): 77-98.
TALA’I H. 1983 - Pottery Evidence from
Ahrendjan Tepe, a Neolithic Site in
the Salmas Plain (Azerbaidjan, Iran),
Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 16:
7–17.
TONOIKE Y. 2009 - Beyond Style: Petrographic
Analysis of Dalma Ceramics in Two Regions
of Iran. ProQuest, UMI Dissertation
Publishing.
VALIPOUR H.R., DAVOUDI H.,
MOSTAFAPOUR I., GREZAK A. 2013
- Tepe Khaleseh, a Late Neolithic Site in
Zanjan Province, in The Neolithisation of
Iran: Patterns of Change and Continuity, R.
J. Matthews, H. Fazeli eds., Themes from
 Same same but different: a comparison of 6th millennium BCE communities in Southern Caucasia and Northwestern Iran

the Ancient Near East BANEA Publication WATKINS T. 2008 - Supra-regional Networks

ata
Series 3. Oxford, Oakville, Oxbow Books: in the Neolithic of Southwest Asia, Journal
147-77. of World Prehistory 21: 139-171.
VAROUTSIKOS B.N.O. 2015 - The – 12016 - The Cultural Dimension of

iet
Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in the Cognition, Quaternary International,
South Caucasus: Cultural Transmissi,and The Material Dimensions of Cognition:
Technology Transfer, Ph.D., United States Reconsidering the Nature and Emergence

ev
- Massachusetts: Harvard University. of the Human Mind, 405, Part A
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy1. (June): 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
library.usyd.edu1748046020/abstract/ quaint.2015.02.049.

n
E43D0CA54E574C12PQ/1..au/docview/ WILKINSON T.J. 2005 - Approaches to
VOIGT M. 1976 - Hajji Firuz Tepe: An Modelling Archaeological Site Territories

sio
Economic Reconstruction of a Sixth in the Near East, in Nonlinear Models for
Millennium Community in Western Iran“. Archaeology and Anthropology. Continuing
Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania, the Revolution, C.S. Beekman,W.W. Baden

u
Department of Anthropology. eds., Hampshire, Ashgate: 123-138.

iff
– 11983. Hajji Firuz Tepe, Iran: the Neolithic YOUKANNA D.G. 1997 - Tell es-Sawwan:
Settlement, Philadelphia: University The Architecture of the Sixth Millennium
Museum University of Pennsylvania. BC, London.
.D
VOIGT M., DYSON R. H. 1992 - The ZEDER M. A., SMITH B. D. 2009 - A
Chronology of Iran, 8000 to 2000 B.C., in Conversation on Agricultural Origins:
Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, R.W. Talking Past Each Other in a Crowded
18
Ehrich ed., 3rd edition, Chicago, London, Room, Current Anthropology 50 (5): 681-
University of Chicago Press: 122-178. 690.
1 /20
0 5/1
re
uto
aa
zz
Bo

81
82
Bo
zz
Helwing, Aliyev

aa
uto
re
0 5/1
1/20
18
.D
iff
usio
nev
iet
ata