Houses and Settlements

district;180 and Godedzor in theVorotanValley of south-eastern Armenia. Some quantities of Chaff-Faced pottery have been found at Aratashen and Tekhut in Armenia, and more recently at Chobareti in southern Georgia.181

In the Early Chalcolithic, connections with the Neolithic are evident.The community at Mentesh (Period II) built circular dwellings (ca. 2.6–5 m in diameter) furnished with a central hearth.182 These ties disappeared later on, in Period III, when multi-roomed rectangular structures were the norm. Ovçular Tepesi, a mound of modest proportions (1.3 ha) in the Middle Araxes Valley, in Nakhichevan is another early site.183 Its small size belies its importance in understanding the evolution of social and political complexity in the southern Caucasus.The topmost deposits of Ovçular were cleared in recent times, and now the site comprises two phases: an earlier level characterised by subrectangular, semi-subterranean structures (Phase I), and a later building level distinguished by multi-roomed mud-brick houses, occasionally supported on stone foundations (Phase II). Radiocarbon readings place them within the period of 4350–4000 BC.

The earliest occupation at the site is most clearly represented by House 1, a structure in Chantier (Area) 1.184 Although river action has obliterated its northern wall, the house plan and its features are well preserved.The building is sub-rectangular in plan and its walls were built of mud bricks (25 x 50 x 8 cm) or half bricks. Stone terrace walls were constructed to protect the hut. Its interior was furnished with standard fitments – a fireplace, a pisé partition wall that presumably separated activity areas, and food processing tools such as a mortar, pestle, and grinding stone.Another building, House 2, is distinguished by a number of circular work areas.185 These areas were sunk slightly into the floor, coated with mud, and edged by a raised wall.

In the second phase, Late Chalcolithic architecture is rectilinear and multiroomed.Associated with this level, in Chantier 12, is one of the best-preserved structures,with stone foundations and mud brick walls,and fitted with a hearth (Figure 4.22(4)).In Chantier 13,there is a series of round stone structures,which have been interpreted as silos.According to the excavators, the settlement was most likely occupied on a seasonal basis by a community of herders, a conclusion drawn largely from the relative thinness of the cultural deposits rather than the age/sex ratio of animal bones.Agriculture was introduced towards the end of Phase II, but was never fully embraced. Despite this change in settlement plan, no change was recorded in the Chaff-Faced Ware assemblage from

180Narimanov 1987;Akhundov 2007.

181Kakhiani et al. 2013.

182Lyonnet et al. 2012: 87–91.

183Marro et al. 2009; Marro et al. 2011. See also the Chalcolithic remains at Sadarak (Bakhshalyiev and Seyidov 2013).

184Marro et al. 2011: 55–62.

185The excavators call these areas ‘dials’. Marro et al. 2009: fig. 5.

one phase to the other. Chapter 5 discusses the ‘Late Chalcolithic Kura-Araxes’ vessels that were found associated with ChaffFaced vessels.

The site of Berikldeebi, located at the confluence of the Kura and Prone Rivers in Shida Kartli, provides an important northern site of the ChaffFaced Ware tradition.186 Of the five cultural periods discerned by Aleksander Dzhavakhishvili, the two lowest concern us here. Period V comprises two building levels (V1, the lowest, and V2) belonging to the Late Chalcolithic period. Above it were the deposits of the early Kura-Araxes culture, Period IV (also subdivided into two – IV1 and IV2). This superimposition makes Berikldeebi a rare and significant site. Four radiocarbon dates, three from Period V1 and one from V2, provide a measure of chronological stability (Figure 4.22(1)).187 Collectively, they place Period V between 4000 and 3600 cal BC. So far, only one date (LE-2197 4850 ± 50 BP), analysed at the former Leningrad Laboratory, underpins Period IV.188

A distinctive blackish matrix (termed the ‘Black Layer’ by Dzhavakhishvili) characterised the lower level (V1).Measuring 25–30 cm thick,it differed sharply from the debris above and beneath it. It mostly comprised an ashy deposit laden with organic admixtures, possibly the result of burnt chaff, according to the excavator, and a good amount of small pebbles. In one area of 16 m2 were embedded the bones of a human arm and an associated bronze bangle – round, thick wire bent in a half-spiral shape – in a concentration of pebbles. Not far from the pebble feature were two stone tools – a grey flint blade and a red-brown flint scraper. Elsewhere a 15 cm band of pebbles encircled an area approximately 5.5 m in diameter.Although heavily damaged, Dzhavakhishvili suggested the feature represented the remains of a cromlech. Other remnants of the Period V1 settlement consisted of fragments of mud-brick and wattle- and-daub structures, and numerous pits, mostly bell-shaped and filled with debris.Amongst them is Pit 128, one of the largest, measuring 175 cm in diameter and 65 cm in depth.

Berikledeebi Period V2 had quite a different character. A substantial mudbrick wall defined its northern edge, where the knoll on which the settlement is established dips into a gully. This was a fortification wall, according to Dzhavakhishvili, and is likely to have enclosed the settlement. At its widest preserved point, the wall measured 2 m, comprising seven bricks across, with the brick sizes averaging 44 x 20 x 8 cm and 48 x 25 x 8 cm. Although the maximum height preserved is only 1 m, the excavator speculated that its original height could have reached 4 m. Only one entrance into the compound has survived. It was 1 m across and was blocked at a later date.A cobble-based

186Dshawachischwili 1998; I would like to thank Mindia Jalabadze for giving me access to the Berikldeebi archives and material.

187Sagona 2014a, 2014b.

188Kavtaradze 1983: 31.

ditch 50 cm wide and 1 m deep that may have served as a type of drainage system defined the outside of the wall. Certain sectors of the inner face of the wall had perpendicular reinforcements that appear to have been built after the wall. Particularly important is a large rectilinear building (Figure 4.22(2–3)), ca. 14.5 x 7.5 m, designated the ‘temple’ by Dzhavakhishvili. The building is orientated east–west and comprises a large open hall and two small rooms at the eastern end. Nothing quite like it has been found in the Caucasus and it has justifiably been designated ‘Mesopotamian-like’, a tag that accords with its associated ceramics.

No less impressive is the well-planned village at Leilatepe where excavations revealed a 2 m cultural deposit comprising eleven building levels.189 Two standard sizes of mud brick (44 x 21 x 10 cm and 50 x 25 x 8 cm), comparable to those used at Berikldeebi, were neatly laid on a layer of mortar to build a variety of rectangular structures. Bricks came in two colours – grey-brown and yellow – and showed no trace of inclusions.Walls and floors were regularly coated with lime plaster, which concealed the regular use of bricks of both colours. Building 1 has a distinctive plan (Figure 4.23(1)). It is almost square (5.6 x 6.2 m) and comprises eight longitudinal rooms, but there is no sign of a doorway. Its layout plus its fill, which consisted of loose soil rich in organic matter, suggest that its purpose was grain storage.A smaller version of this type of granary is seen in Building 5.

Buildings 2 and 8, on the other hand, represent domestic structures (Figure 4.23(1–2)). They were essentially modules of three rooms: Building 2 comprised three rectangular rooms juxtaposed in a row, whereas Building 2, whose walls were preserved to 70 cm in parts and showed signs of repair, was less precise in its orientation. Craft activities were conducted elsewhere; Buildings 3 and 4, for instance, revealed evidence of metalworking.190 Large amounts of ash were interspersed with the wastes of metallurgy – slag deposits, crucibles, and the occasional metal object found near the hearth in Building 3. More recently, an even better snapshot of metallurgical activity has been exposed at Akhantepe, where moulds, crucibles, and the occurrence of lead oxide (litharge) has prompted comparisons with sites in central Iran, such as Arisman, suggesting a possible transfer of knowledge from the east.191 Hearths, otherwise, were located outside in the courtyards and represent a type unique to this region.They were round, defined by a ring of lime-plastered clay, and consisted of two layers.The lower level was perforated with a series of circular holes for ventilation. Not enough detail is provided in the field report, but these elements are suggestive of pottery kilns.

189Narimanov et al. 2007;Akhundov and Makhmudova 2008; Museibli 2014b.

190Museibli 2014c.

191Akhundov 2014; Stöllner 2016: 214.

Figure 4.23. Leilatepe: (1) Buildings 1–3, 5–6, second architectural horizon; (2) Buildings 4, 7–8, 10, third architectural horizon (Akhundov 2007; Narimanov et al. 2007).