II and another (serpentine) example came from Novosvobodnaia Kurgan 31. Grooved sharpening implements used as spoke-shaves complete the ground stone repertoire.

Beads are very common in the early kurgans from the Kuban – they are rarely found in the Kabardino-Piatigorsk region – petering out towards the end of the Maikop culture. They come in a variety of shapes and materials, including carnelian, turquoise, lapis lazuli, rock crystal, and jet. During the early Maikop phase, beads of semi-precious stones were most likely imported from distant regions such as central Asia and the Indian subcontinent, whereas in the late Maikop, local craftsmen produced them from imported stones.Animal figurines are also manufactured from stone. One example from Novosvobodnaia Barrow 31 possibly represents cattle and still bears traces of black paint (Figure 4.17(7)).147

Bone objects: Bone had a variety of uses: in handles for composite tools, projectile points (Chegem I and II and the Bamut), and jewellery items such as a pin with a triangular head from Ust-Dzhegutinskii Barrow 13 (Figure 4.12(9)), which has been compared to an identical one from Arslantepe VIA.148 From Novosvobodnaia come six dice bearing traces of red paint.149

Wood: A unique and interesting object from Novosvobodnaia is a wooden box, measuring 15 cm long, 12 cm wide, and 8 cm high. Little has been written on this object, but it is thought to be the remains of a musical instrument and has been compared to the lyre from Ur.150

THE SOUTHERN CAUCASUS

In recent years, the Chalcolithic period in the southern Caucasus has been brought into sharper focus.151 A growing number of radiocarbon dates and external connections assign it to the period from ca. 5000 BC to 3500 BC, prior to the appearance of Kura-Araxes material that defines the beginning of the Early Bronze Age.152 Two internal phases can be discerned.153 An early Chalcolithic period (ca. 5000–4000 BC) well documented at Mentesh Tepe, Ovçular Tepesi and Aratashen, and a late stage (ca. 4000–3000 BC), when the

147Munchaev 1994b: fig. 49: 7.

148Munchaev 1994b: 198.

149Rezepkin 1991: fig. 10:1, 2

150Munchaev 1994b: 198.

151Chataigner 1995;Akhundov and Makhmudova 2008;Wilkinson 2014a.

152Lyonnet 2007a: 13. For the problem of terminologies and the associated synchronisation with the Near Eastern lands, see Sagona 2014b.

153Kiguradze 2000.

number of sites increases substantially.154 There is even a possibility, to judge from Mentesh Tepe and Ovçular Tepe stratigraphic sequences, that what is now designated the early period may in future warrant a further sub-division into Early (5000–4500 BC) and Middle (4500–4000 BC) Chalcolithic.

Archaeologically, the Chalcolithic of the southern Caucasus comprises two broad horizons, best known through their ceramics: Chaff-Faced Ware and Sioni Ware. The former was far more extensive and part of a tradition that reached from the north Syrian and Mesopotamian plains through the middle stretch of the Araxes Valley of Armenia and Azerbaijan to north-western Iran, where it clusters around Lake Urmia.155 Field surveys of the Doğubayazıt and Van provinces have also revealed some heavy concentrations of Chaff-Faced wares, most notably at the sites of Hanago in Iğdir, and Aştepe and Çolpan in Van region.156 The Sioni tradition, on the other hand, is local and especially prevalent in the Kvemo Kartli region, but also attested on both sides of the Araxes Valley.157 Unlike the Maikop villagers, these communities south of the Caucasus Mountains did not engage with the people of the Pontic steppe, but directed their attention to Anatolia and adjacent territories, with whom interaction increased after the Halaf period.

Behavioural activities, economic strategies, and cultural networks distinguish the Chalcolithic villagers from their Neolithic forebears.158 They may be summarised as follows: a more fl exible lifestyle refl ected in varying modes of occupation from permanent villages to seasonal camps, whether situated in open plains or in caves; a capacity to benefit from resources across a greater range of environmental zones, including those at higher altitudes; diversified subsistence strategies, which by this time incorporated wine-making; external networks, based on a fl ow of commodities, which drew them into worlds beyond the Kura-Araxes interfluve; and an advancement of metallurgy.159

154Mentesh Tepe (Lyonnet et al. 2012), Ovçular Tepesi (Marro et al. 2009, 2011) and Aratashen (Badalyan et al. 2004a).

155Marro 2007: 79, map 1.

156Marro and Özfırat 2003, 2004, 2005.According to Manfred Korfmann’s (1982) consolidation of the crudely excavated material from the small mound of Tilki Tepe, located on the south-eastern shore of Lake Van, Tilki Tepe Level II is neither a stratigraphic deposit, nor a cultural period. But it contains pottery that is both early (grit-tempered holemouth jars and deep bowls), akin to the Neolithic of the Ararat Plain, and late (chaff-tempered jars with either short or pronouncedly everting necks, and conical bowls). Chaff inclusions also characterise Level I, though occasionally the potters added fine grits as well.

157We should avoid referring to the south Caucasian Chalcolithic as Early Sioni and Late Sioni, or indeed prioritising the Sioni assemblage (Dzhaparidze 1989: 340–9). See now, Sagona 2014b.

158Marro et al. 2011; Sagona 2011; Palumbi 2011; Lyonnet et al. 2012.

159Barnard et al. 2011;Areshian et al. 2012; Batiuk 2013; Courcier 2012, 2014.

Chaff -Faced, Late Northern Ubaid-related and Contemporary

Traditions (ca. 5000–3000 BC)

Ceramics and Metalwork

Chaff -Faced Ware The tradition of Chaff-Faced Ware was defined in the classic archaeological survey of the Amuq Plain (Antakya) carried out from 1932 to 1938 by Robert Braidwood and his team from the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago. Of the 178 sites discovered, 8 were chosen for limited excavation, enabling a culture history comprising 22 phases to be developed. Chaff-Faced Ware was ascribed to Amuq F, which set the framework for the relative chronology of north-western Syria and south-eastern Anatolia to between 3750 and 3500 BC.160 This stretch of prehistory corresponds with the Late Chalcolithic 3 (LC3) and Late Chalcolithic 4 (LC4) periods of the Santa Fe chronological scheme.161 Recent evidence from Arslantepe VII, however, has pushed back the appearance of Chaff-Faced Ware to the beginning of the fourth millennium BC, which overlaps in part with the Late Chalcolithic 2 phase.162 This roughly corresponds with evidence emerging from other highland sites, including those from the south Caucasus. Accordingly, Catherine Marro has challenged the consensus view that Chaff-FacedWare was an indigenous assemblage of the Fertile Crescent. Instead, she argues that the tradition emerged as part of the dynamics in the highlands between the Upper Euphrates and the Kura River as early as 4500 BC.163 Chaff-Faced Ware, then, is not only a useful gauge of inter-regional ceramic relationships throughout the Near East (including the far reaches of the Caucasus), it is also a distinctive element in the economic systems of both the formative states and the vast rural landscapes that displayed no form of centralisation.164

On the whole, Chaff-Faced Ware is a homogenous tradition that reflects standardisation and technological simplification. Although variant regional assemblages are apparent and expressed mostly in the range of vessel forms and to a lesser extent ornamentation, certain technological elements of ChaffFacedWare are strikingly similar wherever it occurs. Most obvious is the abundant organic inclusions. Potters added a generous amount of chaff temper to the clay matrix that produced its distinctive fabric. Both surfaces of a container are imprinted with voids left when the chaff was burnt-out during firing. Other than a pale grey core, carbon is not usually diffused into the surrounding clay body, suggesting that the vessels were baked in an oxidising atmosphere.

160Braidwood and Braidwood 1960: 226–58. Owing to the disjuncture between Phase E at Tell Kurdu, and Phase F at Tell Judaidah and Çatal Höyük, this period is sometimes referred to as Amuq E/F.

161Rothman 2001: 7, table 1.1.

162Frangipane 2000: 440–4; D’Anna and Guarino 2010.

163Marro 2010, 2012.

164Munchaev and Amirov 2014.

These wares contain, by definition, very few gritty inclusions, though some mix-tempered examples have been found.

Vessels are reasonably well made and, on the whole, manufactured by hand, although striations around collared rims of certain vessels would suggest the slow wheel, or wiping of the upper features with a damp cloth.165 Containers were constructed with coils, though macro-examination of cross-sections rarely reveals this aspect of their technology. The biscuit is consistently pale brown to orange in colour, showing little attempt at experimentation with firing. Some vessels are lightly burnished or smoothed, a treatment that at times obliterates the chaff impressions; however, the majority are left plain. Generally, potters did not decorate their products, but occasionally they lightly combed the exterior of the vessels with bands, a trait shared with Sioni ceramics.Where ornamentation was used, often on the earlier vessels at Mentesh and Ovçular, it comprised crudely executed geometric incised and impressed motifs, or relief designs. At Ovçular, potters applied knobs and snake motifs, and – in a few cases – depicted a row of caprids on the shoulder of jars.

In the highlands east of the Euphrates and in the southern Caucasus, forms are more restricted than those found in assemblages at Arslantepe and in the Amuq. The main shapes in the southern Caucasus are: holemouth jars; large collared jars with wide neck and a short and outward fl aring rim; hemispherical bowls with turned-in lips; larger bowls with straight sides that generally have out-rolled rims – simple, beaded, or hammer-head, depending on the site; and scoops or pans (Figures 4.20–4.21). This last form, attested at Chobareti, appears to be a hybrid, heralding an early Kura-Araxes shape.

Marro has identified several regional assemblages along the Euphrates corridor and extending across the northern segment of the Fertile Crescent.166 One is located in the Upper Euphrates Valley of Anatolia, and includes Arslantepe and the sites in the Altınova Plain of Elazığ (Norşuntepe,Tülintepe, andTepecik amongst others).167 On the whole, this group shares affinities with the repertoire from north-western Syria, though the distinctive ‘potter’s marks’ that distinguish the Arslantepe VII assemblage are lacking in the Amuq sequence, perhaps more an instance of greater excavation exposure at Arslantepe than any real difference. Another concentration of Chaff-Faced Ware is located in the Middle Euphrates region and incorporates the Khabur Plain. The main assemblage there is Hacınebi A/B1, where bowls with hammerhead rims and squat jars (casseroles) are key types.168 Potter’s marks are also found, especially at Tell Brak TW 19–14.A third assemblage is located in the Balikh region and

165The claim that potters at Leilatepe used the wheel is more unexpected,Akhundov 2007: 108; Museyibli 2007: 70.

166Marro 2010.

167Frangipane 2000: 440–4; Gülçur 2000.

168Pearce 2000.

Figure 4.20. Chaff-Faced Ware from various sites (after Akhundov 2007; Narimanov et al. 2007;Areshian et al. 2012).

Centre-dot circles, horizontal bands around the rim, and festoon patterns pendant from the necks of jars were also used, and always applied in a hurried manner.

Other Plain Wares The overwhelming majority of pottery from Godedzor is plain and chaff-tempered, with standard surface treatment.Technologically, these forms are slab built, roughly manufactured, and poorly fired.The range of forms is limited, mostly jars followed by bowls, both displaying simple profiles. Smoke patches and varying surface colours, ranging from buff through pink to brown, point to an open and uncontrolled firing process. There are three other categories of this plain ware: one is thickly slipped in whitish cream or pink, another has a fabric that is chaff-and-grit tempered, whereas a third is thin walled and exclusively tempered with grit inclusions. The decoration of plain ware is distinctive. Vessels’ exteriors are covered with either finger impressions or small pellets of clay. A striking example of the latter is the vessel from Damstvari Gora that can be compared to slipped wares with a rusticated surface from Dalma Tepe (Figure 4.21(5)).172 Both impressed and pellet decoration are found over a wide area from northern Azerbaijan through the Lake Urmia Basin, where they have been discovered in mid-fifth-millennium BC contexts at Dalma Tepe, towards the north-eastern segment of the Fertile Crescent.

Metallurgy and Metalwork Metalworking is significant. An awl with a square shaft and a knife blade, both with a high percentage of tin – 3.8 per cent (knife) and 3.2 per cent (awl) – came from Delisi.173 Analysis of similar metal awls manufactured at Kviriastskali and Leilatepe reveal that its constituent elements include 2.01 per cent arsenic and 0.67 per cent nickel.174 The appearance of arsenical copper artefacts marks a watershed in Caucasian technology. They occur at sites including Tsiteli Gorebi and Alazani III (Kviriastskali), and in a number of Darkveti rock shelters. Their chemical composition relates an interesting story. Like the earlier objects from Kültepe I, many of these artefacts can be classed as arsenical coppers, with arsenic varying in quantity from 0.4 to 1.15 per cent. Some objects have also been alloyed with nickel and zinc, which, associated with examples of Chaff-Faced and Halaf wares, led to the assumption that metallurgy was introduced into the Caucasus.175 In recent years, however, the thinking has changed, owing to the discovery of several nickel-bearing copper deposits in the Caucasus.176

172Kiguradze and Sagona 2003: fig. 3.12; Hamlin 1975: fig. 8:A, C, D, and pls Ic and II.

173Miron and Orthmann 1995: 318.

174Museibli 2014c.

175Kavtaradze 1999: 72.

176Courcier 2007: 204.