Versione classicaVersione mobile

The Iranian Plateau during the Bronze Age

 | 
Jan-Waalke Meyer
, 
Emmanuelle Vila
, 
Marjan Mashkour
, 
et al.

Expansion of the Kura-Araxes culture in Iran

Subsistence economy in Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi (eastern Azerbaijan, Iran) during the Late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age based on the faunal and botanical remains

Alexia Decaix, Fatemeh Azadeh Mohaseb, Sepideh Maziar, Marjan Mashkour e Margareta Tengberg

Abstract

This paper deals with the results obtained from the study of faunal and botanical remains from Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi (Iran). For archaeozoologists, the north-western part of Iran is one of the most important regions because of the abundance of bovines as well as ovicaprines. The traces of human activities are very well represented. Archaeobotanical studies are still rare in this area, but the first analysis of some recently excavated sites provide very interesting results and show the potential of this key area. This work present a multidisciplinary approach, which constitutes a first picture of interaction between human, animal and plants in Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi during the Late Chalcolithic represented by Sioni and Chaff‑faced traditions and the Early Bronze Age by Kura‑Araxes cultural tradition. In this regards, the presented material in this article would enhance our understanding of the subsistence economy of these traditions inside Iran, of which rarely is published.

Testo integrale

Introduction

  • 1 Maziar 2010.
  • 2 Maziar 2010.
  • 3 See Maziar in this volume.

1Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi is an archaeological site localized in the north‑western part of Iran, in the eastern Azerbaijan province on the south bank of the Araxes valley in Khoda-afarin plain. The main part of the excavation of Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi was performed under the direction of J. Babapiri with the support of the Iranian Center for Archaeological Research (ICAR). Beside his excavation, three other trenches, TT6, TT6B, and S4 were excavated under the direction of S. Maziar. The studied material in this article just belongs to these three trenches and not the whole excavation1. The excavations on top of the mound revealed remains from the Parthian period and beneath, layers dated from the Iron Age. After a gap, levels from the Early Bronze Age and Late Chalcolithic were excavated2. Different sizes of bell‑shaped pits and part of the stone rows were excavated from Late Chalcolithic phase. Respectively, a circular mud‑brick architecture with different sub‑phases were uncovered from the Kura‑Araxes phase in the site3. This paper represents a multidisciplinary approach in faunal and botanical studies of the site.

Material and methods

2Both botanical and faunal remains are coming from three trenches S4, TT6 and TT6B and are attributed to the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age.

Faunal remains

3The faunal remains of Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi consist of 1903 fragments from which 261 belong to the Late Chalcolithic and 1642 to the Early Bronze Age. Because of the low number of specifically identified specimens (n=347) during the Late Chalcolithic, we decided to pool together the faunal assemblages of the two periods.

  • 4 Payne 1973; Helmer and Vigne 2004.

4Bone preservation is not satisfactory in this site. As a result, almost 44% of the bones are identified neither anatomically nor specifically and the average weight of each unidentified bone is 1.5 g, which determines a high degree of fragmentation (tab. 1). Unfortunately, even among the identifiable bones, there is not enough measurable bone to provide statistical data on the morphology of the taxa, present at the site. Besides, the low number of herbivore cheek teeth in the faunal assemblage of Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi, which provides valuable demographic information on herd management through tooth eruption and ware, is notable4. The number of unfused bones, which is important for demographic analysis, is scarce. This may be related to the bad conditions of bone preservation, which affect more the younger animals.

Table 1 – Distribution of faunal remains in Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi in means of number of fragments (NF) and weight.

Faunal assemblage NF NF% Weight Weight%
Specificaaly identified 347 18.2 3760 39.0
Small Ruminants 544 28.6 2086 21.6
Large Mammals 179 9.4 2552 26.5
Unidentified 833 43,8 1238 12.8
Total 1903 100.0 9636 100.0

Botanical remains

5Sediment samples coming from ten stratigraphic units (SU) and containing charred macroremains were collected from various contexts. covering the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age. preferentially with a high ash content. Indeed. pits and ashy layers are the main type of deposit sampled. Charred macrobotanical remains were extracted from the archaeological sediments using the flotation method. When we know the volume of soil sampled. the volume of samples varies from 6.5 to 65 liters (tab. 2).

  • 5 Berggren 1981; Jacomet 2006; Nesbitt and Goddard 2006; Cappers, Neef and Bekker 2009; Neef, Capper (...)

6Following the study of 1172 seed and fruit remains and 231 charcoals, 49 taxa were identified. The density of seeds and fruits in the samples varies from 0.21 to 33.84 per liter of floated soil. The stratigraphic unit S4CatIV is the richest in terms of botanical macroremains (NR=626). Once brought to the laboratory, seeds and fruits remains were identified with the help of a binocular microscope allowing ×10 magnification. A reference collection of Near Eastern seeds and comparison atlases were used for the identification of archaeological samples5.

  • 6 Chabal 1997; Schweingruber 1990.
  • 7 Schweingruber 1990; Parsah Pajouh, Schweingruber and Lenz 2001; Benkova and Schweingruber 2004; Sc (...)
  • 8 Salavert et al. 2014.

7Charcoal fragments were fractioned manually along three wood sections for the anatomical observation6. They were studied under an optical reflected-light microscope (x50‑x1000) and were identified by the use of reference collection of modern temperate, Mediterranean and Near Eastern woods, as well as descriptions in wood anatomy atlases7. Taxa were identified as precisely as possible, that is most often to the genus level but in some cases it was difficult to distinguish between two different taxa, for example between poplar (Populus) and willow (Salix). Difficulties in botanical identification are most often due to similarities in the cellular structure between two closely related species but sometimes, the general preservation status can also affect the degree of precision of the identifications. In order to identify the largest spectrum of wood species as possible for each sample, each time we identified a new taxa, we observed 50 new charcoal pieces if the samples allows it8.

Table 2 – List of samples studied in the framework of the archaeobotanical study.

Table 2 – List of samples studied in the framework of the archaeobotanical study.

Results

The faunal spectra

8The faunal remains of Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi consists of 1903 bone fragments weighed 9636 g. Besides the unidentified bones, 38% of the remains belong to two categories of Small ruminants (29%) comprising ovicaprines (sheep and goat) as well as gazelle and Large mammals (9%) comprising bovines and equids. Actually this part of the material can only be used for the general description of the faunal remains. The faunal spectra of Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi assemblage is examined based on only a small part of the material (18%), which could be identified taxonomically (tab. 3 and fig. 1).

 

  • 9 Boessneck 1969; Halstead and Collins 2002.

9The number of identified specimens (NISP) in Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi is composed of 347 faunal remains. This assemblage is mainly composed of the small and large herbivores (especially ovicaprines and bovines). The most abundant group is the ovicaprines with a contribution of about 64% from which 11.5% are identified as sheep (Ovis) and 6.6% as goat (Capra)9. The contribution of bovines is about 25%.

 

10Relative frequencies of the different taxa are also calculated on the basis of bone weight in gram. This method is used to estimate the relative meat contribution for each taxon and their relative economic value. The bone weights in table 3 and figure 1 indicate that bovines followed by ovicaprines, representing respectively 51% and 42% of the weight of the assemblage, play an equal role in the subsistence economy of the site.

  • 10 Ziaei 1996.

11Among the other represented taxa two wild species of suids (3.5% of NISP) and cervids (1.4%) were represented in low quantities. The northern part of Iran is located in the natural distribution zone of both. This low representation confirms that hunting was not an important activity in Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi. Among the minor species, we could identify the remains of canids, felids, bear and also rabbit (Lepus europaeus). Among the felids, we observed a metatarsus, which could be allocated to a lion (Panthera leo). The presence of bear is confirmed with the presence of a calcaneus found in the Early Bronze Age levels (fig. 2). The main habitat of this animal is the forests and grasslands near forests. The province of Azerbaijan is one of the main distribution areas of this species in Iran10.

 

  • 11 Boessneck and Krauss 1973.
  • 12 Porter and Aspinall 2010; Mansoori 2001.

12Birds although relatively little represented in Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi (2,3%), are more common than many sites inside the Plateau. The diversity of birds as reported in the archaeological record in this area is not relatively high11. We identified five different species of birds: Galiformes cf. Gallus, Corvidae cf. Corvus, Fulica atra and Phasianus colchicus. Eurasian coot or Fulica atra is partial migrant and could be seen in a large number around the lakes, reservoirs and salt water during winter. The proximity of the site to the Araxes river and also to the Urmia lake could be a good evidence of the presence of this species in Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi. Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) is a resident bird and lives in the woodland borders and thickets. In the Middle East this species spread from the north west to the north east of Iran12.

13We have also found three remains of fish from which a vertebra belong to a large Cyprinid (fig. 3). Surprisingly no remains of equids were found in the site.

Table 3 – Distribution of faunal remains in Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi in means of number of identified specimens (NISP) and weight.

Taxa NISP NISP % Weight Weight %
Bos 87 25.1 1910 50.8
Ovicaprines 161 46.4 860 22.9
Capra 23 6.6 338 9.0
Ovis 40 11.5 376.4 10.0
Suids 12 3.5 128 3.4
Cervids 5 1.4 40 1.1
Canids 2 0.6 32 0.9
Felids 2 0.6 6 0.2
Panthera cf. Leo 1 0.3 21 0.6
Ursus arctos 1 0.3 22 0.6
Lepus europaeus 1 0.3 1 0.0
Birds 4 1.2 2.2 0.1
Galiformes cf. Gallus 1 0.3 1 0.0
Corvidae cf. Corvus 1 0.3 1 0.0
Fulica atra 1 0.3 1 0.0
Phasianus colchicus 1 0.3 2 0.1
Reptiles 1 0.3 0.2 0.0
Fish 3 0.9 18 0.5
Total 347 100.0 3759.8 100.0

Fig. 1 – Faunal spectra in two periods of Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi in means of number of identified specimens (NISP) and weight.

Fig. 1 – Faunal spectra in two periods of Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi in means of number of identified specimens (NISP) and weight.

Fig. 2 – A: Metatarsus of lion, external view, Early Bronze Age. B: Calcaneus of bear, external view mesial‑distal, right side, Early Bronze Age.

Fig. 2 – A: Metatarsus of lion, external view, Early Bronze Age. B: Calcaneus of bear, external view mesial‑distal, right side, Early Bronze Age.

Fig. 3 – A: Humerus of pheasant, cranial view, right side, Early Bronze Age. B: Vertebra of fish, cranial view, Late Chalcolithic.

Fig. 3 – A: Humerus of pheasant, cranial view, right side, Early Bronze Age. B: Vertebra of fish, cranial view, Late Chalcolithic.

Bone modification

14Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi faunal assemblage is anthropogenic and traces of burning and cutmarks can be observed on many of them as a result of consumption activities.

15It should be noted that the amount of burnt bones in this site is important (about 81%). The trace of burning could be seen on different bones of bovines, ovicaprines, suids and even felids. The cutmarks represented on the animal bones of this site are very limited. A single one could be observed on a vertebra of a small ruminant (fig. 4).

 

16In this site, bones were also used as raw material for making tools or other artifacts. In the faunal assemblage, we isolated four worked bones, which belong to both periods of the site (fig. 5).

 

17Apart from traces generated by human activities, we observed some traces caused by other factors. The damage caused by carnivores, is observed on a first phalange and a talus of an ovicaprine, both belong to the Early Bronze Age. The traces of erosion could be seen on some of the bones such as a second phalange of sheep and a talus of goat (Late Chalcolithic), which could be a reason of the vicinity of the site to the river (fig. 6). Finally, we have also observed the traces of pathology on some of the bones of cattle, which may probably confirm the use of animal as draught (fig. 7).

Fig. 4 – A: Burning traces on a second phalanx (mesial view) of cattle, Early Bronze Age. B: Trace of cutmark on a fragmented vertebra of a small ruminant, Early Bronze Age.

Fig. 4 – A: Burning traces on a second phalanx (mesial view) of cattle, Early Bronze Age. B: Trace of cutmark on a fragmented vertebra of a small ruminant, Early Bronze Age.

Fig. 5 – Worked bones. A: Two bone awls made of the ulna of ovicaprines, Early Bronze Age. B: A jeton from a flat bone, Early Bronze Age. C: A worked antler of red deer, Late Chalcolithic.

Fig. 5 – Worked bones. A: Two bone awls made of the ulna of ovicaprines, Early Bronze Age. B: A jeton from a flat bone, Early Bronze Age. C: A worked antler of red deer, Late Chalcolithic.

Fig. 6 – A: Trace of digestion on a talus of ovicaprine, Early Bronze Age. B: Trace of erosion on a talus of Capra, Late Chalcolithic.

Fig. 6 – A: Trace of digestion on a talus of ovicaprine, Early Bronze Age. B: Trace of erosion on a talus of Capra, Late Chalcolithic.

Fig. 7 – Traces of pathology on two second phalanx of cattle. A: cranial view and B: caudal view, Early Bronze Age.

Fig. 7 – Traces of pathology on two second phalanx of cattle. A: cranial view and B: caudal view, Early Bronze Age.

The botanical assemblage

Seeds and fruits study

18Among the charred and mineralized remains, 1172 items representing a minimum of 1012 individuals were analyzed (tab. 4). Among 37 taxa recognized, 6 represent cultivated plants (cereals and pulses) whereas 31 taxa refer to wild plants (Poaceae, wild Fabaceae, fruit tree species, etc.).

19Cereals represent more than 15% of the remains. They are irregularly present in 6 of the 8 samples studied. Only two samples (S4CatIV and 6033) count more than 50 of them. The two cereals identified are barley (Hordeum vulgare) and naked wheat (Triticum aestivum/turgidum). Among barley, both hulled caryopsis and asymmetrical caryopsis were found. The last ones could belong to 6‑row barley. These cereals are both well adapted to climate and environmental conditions of the Araxes valley where rainfalls are sufficient for a dryland farming. But it is also possible that people used water from the Kaleybar Cay to irrigate their cultures.

20Among the pulses, two taxa are identified: lentil (Lens culinaris) and grasspea (Lathyrus).

  • 13 Messager et al. 2010.
  • 14 Zohary 1973, p. 366.

21Five fruits were recognized among the botanical remains: hackberry (Celtis), hawthorn (Crataegus), fig (Ficus), pear (Pyrus) and grapevine (Vitis vinifera) [fig. 8]. Hackberry is frequently represented in the samples in each period with mineralized fruits but also with charcoal fragments. Four species are living in the Caucasus: C. australis, C. caucasica, C. tournefortii and C. glabrata. It seems that they all product comestible fruits, but because of its conservation mode, this species is probably over represented13. Even if examples of culture of hackberry were reported (Celtis australis14), here it is probably gathering remains.

22Hawthorn tree products small fruits which can be eaten fresh or used in different preparations such as cordial or herbal tea. Two other fruits from the Rosaceae family were identified. Fragments from the shell of a Prunoideae could belong to a fruit such as plum, sloe or almond.

23A seed is identified as belonging to a plant from the genus Pyrus (wild pear‑tree).

  • 15 Gabrielian and Zohary 2004.
  • 16 Gabrielian and Zohary 2004.

24Two other fruit species are present in the samples of Kohne Pasgah Tepesi: the fig tree (Ficus cf. carica) and the grapevine (Vitis vinifera). From morphology, we have not yet been able to specify if these remains come from a gathering of wild fruit or arboriculture. Grape is indigenous in the Caucasus were the wild subspecies (subsp. sylvestris) grows preferentially in the riparian formations or in the open forests between 500 and 1400 meters of altitude15. In Kohne Pasgah Tepesi, almost 300 seeds of vine are identified in a deposit context inside a circular structure (SU S4CatI). The presence of fig tree asks similar interrogations. Is it a wild species or a cultivated one? Indigenous or introduced? Wild forms of fig tree (Ficus carica) are pointed in Armenia and in Nakhchivan where they grow on chalky stony slopes and more often in stony areas. They are an element from the mixed forests in association with, among others, Punica granatum, Vitis vinifera subsp. sylvestris, Amygdalus fenziliana, Diospyrus caucasicus and several species of the genus Berberis16.

  • 17 Willcox 2012.
  • 18 Gabrielian and Zohary 2004.

25In most of cases, alimentary plants remains are mixed in the samples with seeds of wild plants. They belong to 14 botanical families, among them the Poaceae, Boraginaceae and the Fabaceae present the biggest taxonomical diversity. When the identification of seeds and fruits was up to genus or species, we find in this assemblage several plants growing in the fields, as weeds (Aegilops, Alhagi, Astragalus, Buglossoides arvensis, Galium, Medicago…). Interpretation of these taxa as arable weeds seems to be the most plausible17. In this case, our assemblages, resulting essentially from secondary deposit, would correspond to residues of harvest cleaning, accumulated during time in pits or in occupation or abandoned levels. A taxon from the Panicoideae subfamily deserve our attention: Setaria (foxtail millet). It is a plant hardy to the warmth or dryness, evolving often in summer cultures or in anthropised habitat. For example, Setaria viridis, is a common weed in Armenia, where it grows in orchard, vineyard or gardens as well as along road18.

Table 4 – Proportions of the taxa identified in the samples of Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi.

Table 4 – Proportions of the taxa identified in the samples of Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi.

P < 1%; + < 5%; ++ from 5 to 25%; +++ from 25 to 50%.

Fig. 8 – Fruits identified in the samples from Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi. a. hackberry (Celtis sp.); b. fig (Ficus cf. carica); c. grapevine (Vitis vinifera) [©A. Decaix].

Fig. 8 – Fruits identified in the samples from Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi. a. hackberry (Celtis sp.); b. fig (Ficus cf. carica); c. grapevine (Vitis vinifera) [©A. Decaix].

Charcoal fragments study

26231 charcoals from Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi allowed identifying 12 taxa. All the samples used for the charcoal study are attributed to the Early Bronze Age.

27Among the identified charcoal fragments, 4 taxa are well represented: tamarisk (Tamarix, 22.51%), willow (Salix sp., 15.15%), poplar/willow (Populus/Salix, 20.82%) and some taxa from the Prunoideae group (15.15%).

28Some other taxa are less represented: maple tree (Acer sp.), ash tree (Fraxinus sp.), poplar (Populus sp.) and Christ’s thorn or jujube (Paliurus/Ziziphus) with respectively 5.63%, 5.63%, 4.76% and 3.01%. Elm is representing 2.60% whereas oak (Quercus sp.), myrtle (Myrtus sp.) and hornbeam (Carpinus sp.) represents less than 2% (fig. 9). Some charcoal remains indeterminate whereas others were only identified to the Angiosperm level.

 

29Today natural vegetable formation of the Araxes valley, notably in Iranian Azerbaijan are extremely reduced in reason of several human activities. Study of charcoal is a precious way to recreate the vegetable cover of the past periods. The results obtain for this site show an environment much less anthropised than today with richest formations and without doubt with a higher density of trees. But we have to precise here that the number of samples and charcoals studied for Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi is very reduced, so these result must be employed with caution.

30The wood used in the site comes mainly from two types of vegetable formations. Several taxa are characteristic of evergreen formations growing along rivers: ash tree, poplar/willow, elm and tamarisk.

  • 19 Decaix 2014.

31Beyond constitute a source of wood easily accessible and renewable, the riparian formations constituted probably an attractive environment rich in vegetable and animal resources. For example, it could provide building materials as well as flexible branches of poplars or willows for basketry or be used as livestock pasture. The identification of riparian forest as the main source of wood used for fuel seems to be quite frequent in the Southern Caucasus19.

32A second group of taxa characterizes more or less open formations, shrubby or planted with trees, growing on dryer soils from a certain distance of rivers: maple or Prunoideae belong to this group.

33In Transcaucasia, these taxa belong to different formations: phrygana, shibliak and open‑forests formations (steppe‑forest type). So, it is delicate to apply them to a specific vegetable formation because according to edaphic, climatic and above all anthropic, they are more or less dominant in formations, which are more or less dense and more or less shrubby or planted with trees.

34The oak tree and hornbeam charcoals could reflect exploitation of mixed deciduous forest.

Fig. 9 – Results of the charcoal fragments study from Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi.

Fig. 9 – Results of the charcoal fragments study from Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi.

Discussion

35The bioarchaeological studies of Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi shows a potential for understanding the subsistence economy of the north‑western part of Iran during the Late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age.

  • 20 Mashkour 2001; Mohaseb 2012; Davoudi, Mashkour and Mohaseb 2014; Davoudi, Mashkour and Abedi 2015.
  • 21 Mohaseb 2012 ; Mohaseb, Mashkour 2017.

36The exploitation of animal resources in this site is mostly based on the exploitation of ovicaprines and bovines. The importance of cattle is to be noted in this part of Iran especially after the Bronze Age20. This tendency is related to favorable climatic comfort with appropriate moisture suitable for herding of this species. Also the pathology on some of the distal bones of cattle skeleton, indicates that cattle was used as a draught animal and most probably for agricultural activities, which were also important as indicated by the archaeobotanical results. Bones pathologies are also evidence in other sites of the Iranian Azerbaijan like Haftavan Tepe dated from the Early Bronze Age to the beginning of the Islamic period21.

37Hunting was a minor activity in this site and constitutes about 4.8% of remains, which mostly concerns suids and cervids. These two species, roaming in the humid environment of the site, seem to be the main hunted mammals.

38Equid bones were not found. If wild equids, hemiones, are not expected in the moist and luscious environment of the site, however we would have expected to find horse or even donkey remains.

  • 22 Ziaei 1996.
  • 23 Ziaei 1996.

39The interesting aspect of Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi faunal remains is related to the remains of bear and lion. The main habitats of brown bears include forests and altitude grasslands22. Today, with the extreme anthropogenic pressure in Iran, the habitat of this species in limited to the forests of Caspian region and Zagros. Lions before being extinct were found mainly in the forests and in the grasslands near water flows and rivers. The location of Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi, situated in proximity of the Araxes is probably the reason of presence of this species in the site. Nowadays, there exists no Persian lion in Iran; one of the last sighting of this species was in 1942 in north western of Dezful in Khuzestan province23. Before, the habitat of lion was the forests of Khuzestan and the southern part of Zagros.

40Finally, the presence of migratory birds such as the Fulica atra is indicating a capture during the winter and suggests the occupation of the site at this period of the year.

41According to the results of the archaeobotanical analysis, the vegetal diet of inhabitants of this site seems to have been based on cereals, barley, naked wheat, pulses, lentils and grasspea. The presence of weeds and sub‑products of the cereal harvest show the harvest treatment (threshing, sifting, riddling) and consequently the cultivation locally made supported also by archaeozoological observations on cattle and its use for agricultural activities. This drives us to further discussions on the evidences of ploughing during Chalcolithic and Bronze Age.

42The gathering of fruits seems to have been also an important part of the food supply as it is shown by the diversity of fruit trees remains in the small number of samples available.

43About the pips of grape discovered, it is too soon to conclude here about viticulture practices, as no structures precisely defined to produce wine were discovered.

44The combination of archaeozoological and archaeobotanical studies allows a better understanding of the subsistence economy of inhabitants of the site. It seems that we are dealing with people practicing herding and farming, but also occasionally hunting. We see a consistency for example between the type of formations were wood was collected, riparian forests and more or less open woodlands but also deciduous forests, and the hunted animals, such as suids and cervids, for instance.

45In order to have a clearer image of the subsistence economy of Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi and globally in the region of Eastern Azerbaijan during the chronological sequence of the site, it would be very interesting to complete it with further studies on archaeobotanical and archaeozoological remains in the Azerbaijan province of Iran.

Bibliografia

Benkova V.E. and Schweingruber F.H. 2004, Anatomy of Russian woods. An atlas for the identification of trees, shrubs, dwarf shrubs and woody lianas from Russia, Bern-Stuttgart-Wien.

Berggren G. 1981, Atlas of seeds, Stockholm.

Boessneck J. 1969, “Osteological differences between Sheep (Ovis aries) and goat (Capra hircus)”, Science in Archaeology 30, p. 331‑358.

Boessneck J. and Krauss R. 1973, “Die Tierwelt um Bastam: Nordwest-Azerbaidjan”, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran, Neue Folge 6, p. 113‑133.

Cappers R.T.J. and Bekker R.M. 2013, A manual for the identification of plant seeds and fruits, Groningen Archaeological Studies 23, Groningen.

Cappers R.T.J., Neef R. and Bekker R.M. 2009, Digital Atlas of Economic Plants (2 vol.), Groningen Archaeological Studies 17, Groningen.

Cappers R.T.J., Bekker R.M. and Jans J.E.A. 2012, Digital Seed Atlas of the Netherlands (2nd ed.), Groningen Archaeological Studies 4, Groningen.

Chabal L. 1997, Forêts et sociétés en Languedoc (Néolithique final, Antiquité tardive). L’anthracologie, méthode et paléoécologie, Documents d’Archéologie Française 63, Paris.

Davoudi H., Mashkour M. and Mohaseb F.A. 2014, “Animal resource exploitation and management at Tepe Hasanlu (North‑West Iran) from Early Bronze Age to the Islamic (Ilkhanid) periods”, 12th ICAZ conference, San Rafael, Argentina, September 2014, Poster presentation.

Davoudi H., Mashkour M. and Abedi A. 2015, “Subsistence economy at Kul Tepe (North-Western Iran) from Early Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age”, 12th international meeting of the ASWA, Groningen, Netherlands, June 2015, Poster presentation.

Decaix A. 2014, “Environnement végétal et exploitation des ressources ligneuses en Transcaucasie, du Néolithique à l’âge du Bronze”, in S. Ferjani, A. Le Bihan, M. Onfray and C. Tremeaud (ed.), Matières premières et gestion des ressources, Actes de la 7e Journée doctorale d’Archéologie, Paris 23 mai 2012, Paris, p. 39‑55.

Gabrielian E. and Zohary D. 2004, “Wild relatives of food crops native to Armenia and Nakhitchevan”, Flora Mediteranea 14, p. 5‑80.

Halstead P. and Collins P. 2002, “Sorting the sheep from the goats: Morphological distinctions between the mandibles and mandibular teeth for adult Ovis and Capra”, Journal of Archaeological Science 29, p. 545‑553.

Helmer D. and Vigne J.‑D. 2004, “La gestion des caprinés domestiques dans le midi de la France”, in P. Bodu and C. Constantin (éd.), Approches fonctionnelles en Préhistoire, Actes du XXVe colloque du Congrès Préhistorique de France (Nanterre nov. 2000), Mémoire de la Société Préhistorique Française n° spécial, Paris, p. 397‑407.

Jacomet St. 2006, Identification of cereal remains from archaeological sites (2nd ed.), Basel.

Mansoori J. 2001, A field guide to the birds of Iran, Tehran (in Persian).

Mashkour M. 2001, Chasse et élevage du Néolithique à l’Âge du Fer dans la plaine de Qazvin (Iran): Étude archéozoologique des sites Zagheh, Qabrestan et Sagzabad, PhD thesis, Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University, Paris (unpublished).

Maziar S. 2010, “Excavations at Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi, the Araxes valley, Northwest Iran: First preliminary report”, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 47, p. 165‑193.

Messager E., Badou A., Fröhlich F., Deniaux B., Lordkipanidze D. and Voinchet P. 2010, “Fruit and seed biomineralization and its effect on preservation”, Archaeological and Anthropological Science 2, p. 25‑34.

Mohaseb F.A. and Mashkour M. 2017, “Animal exploitation from the Bronze Age to the Early Islamic period in Haftavan Tepe (Western Azerbaijan-Iran)”, in M. Mashkour and M.J. Beech (ed.), Archaeozoology of the Near East 9, Proceedings of the 2008 Al Ain-Abu Dhabi conference, Oxford, p. 146‑170.

Mohaseb Karimlu F.A. 2012, Exploitation des animaux durant l’Âge du Bronze au début de la période islamique dans le nord-ouest de l’Iran : étude archéozoologique de Haftavan Tepe, PhD thesis, Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University, Paris (unpublished).

Neef R., Cappers R.T.J. and Bekker R.M. 2012, Digital Atlas of Economic Plants in Archaeology, Groningen Archaeological Studies 17, Groningen.

Nesbitt M. and Goddard J. 2006, Near Eastern Grass Seeds, London.

Parsa Pajouh D., Schweingruber F.H. and Lenz O. 2001, Atlas des bois du nord de l’Iran, Description anatomique et identification microscopique des essences principales, Tehran.

Payne S. 1973, “Kill‑off patterns in sheep and goats: The mandibles from Aswan Kale”, Journal of Anatolian Studies 23, p. 281‑303.

Porter R. and Aspinall S. 2010, Birds of the Middle East (Helm Field Guides), London.

Salavert A., Messager E., Motuzaite‑Matuzeviciute G., Lebreton V., Bayle G., Crépin L., Puaud S., Péan S., Yamada M. and Yanevich A. 2015, “First results of archaeobotanical analysis from Neolithic layers of Buran Kaya IV (Crimea, Ukraine)”, Environmental Archaeology 20/3, p. 274‑282.

Schweingruber F.H. 1990, Anatomie Europaischer Hölfzer – Anatomy of European Woods, Eidgenössische Forschungsanstalt für Wald, Schnee und Landschaft, Haupt-Bern-Stuttgart.

Schweingruber F.H., Börner A. and Schulze E.‑D. 2011, Atlas of stem anatomy in herbs, shrubs and trees 1 and 2, Berlin.

Willcox G. 2012, “Searching for the origins of arable weeds”, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 21, p. 163‑167.

Ziaei H. 1996, A field guide to the mammals of Iran, Tehran (in Persian).

Zohary M. 1973, Geobotanical foundations of the Middle‑East, Stuttgart.

Note

1 Maziar 2010.

2 Maziar 2010.

3 See Maziar in this volume.

4 Payne 1973; Helmer and Vigne 2004.

5 Berggren 1981; Jacomet 2006; Nesbitt and Goddard 2006; Cappers, Neef and Bekker 2009; Neef, Cappers and Bekker 2012; Cappers, Bekker and Jans 2012; Cappers and Bekker 2013.

6 Chabal 1997; Schweingruber 1990.

7 Schweingruber 1990; Parsah Pajouh, Schweingruber and Lenz 2001; Benkova and Schweingruber 2004; Schweingruber, Börner and Schulze 2011.

8 Salavert et al. 2014.

9 Boessneck 1969; Halstead and Collins 2002.

10 Ziaei 1996.

11 Boessneck and Krauss 1973.

12 Porter and Aspinall 2010; Mansoori 2001.

13 Messager et al. 2010.

14 Zohary 1973, p. 366.

15 Gabrielian and Zohary 2004.

16 Gabrielian and Zohary 2004.

17 Willcox 2012.

18 Gabrielian and Zohary 2004.

19 Decaix 2014.

20 Mashkour 2001; Mohaseb 2012; Davoudi, Mashkour and Mohaseb 2014; Davoudi, Mashkour and Abedi 2015.

21 Mohaseb 2012 ; Mohaseb, Mashkour 2017.

22 Ziaei 1996.

23 Ziaei 1996.

Indice delle illustrazioni

Titolo Table 2 – List of samples studied in the framework of the archaeobotanical study.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/7996/img-1.jpg
File image/jpeg, 225k
Titolo Fig. 1 – Faunal spectra in two periods of Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi in means of number of identified specimens (NISP) and weight.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/7996/img-2.jpg
File image/jpeg, 92k
Titolo Fig. 2 – A: Metatarsus of lion, external view, Early Bronze Age. B: Calcaneus of bear, external view mesial‑distal, right side, Early Bronze Age.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/7996/img-3.jpg
File image/jpeg, 600k
Titolo Fig. 3 – A: Humerus of pheasant, cranial view, right side, Early Bronze Age. B: Vertebra of fish, cranial view, Late Chalcolithic.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/7996/img-4.jpg
File image/jpeg, 431k
Titolo Fig. 4 – A: Burning traces on a second phalanx (mesial view) of cattle, Early Bronze Age. B: Trace of cutmark on a fragmented vertebra of a small ruminant, Early Bronze Age.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/7996/img-5.jpg
File image/jpeg, 522k
Titolo Fig. 5 – Worked bones. A: Two bone awls made of the ulna of ovicaprines, Early Bronze Age. B: A jeton from a flat bone, Early Bronze Age. C: A worked antler of red deer, Late Chalcolithic.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/7996/img-6.jpg
File image/jpeg, 330k
Titolo Fig. 6 – A: Trace of digestion on a talus of ovicaprine, Early Bronze Age. B: Trace of erosion on a talus of Capra, Late Chalcolithic.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/7996/img-7.jpg
File image/jpeg, 355k
Titolo Fig. 7 – Traces of pathology on two second phalanx of cattle. A: cranial view and B: caudal view, Early Bronze Age.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/7996/img-8.jpg
File image/jpeg, 422k
Titolo Table 4 – Proportions of the taxa identified in the samples of Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi.
Legenda P < 1%; + < 5%; ++ from 5 to 25%; +++ from 25 to 50%.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/7996/img-9.jpg
File image/jpeg, 642k
Titolo Fig. 8 – Fruits identified in the samples from Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi. a. hackberry (Celtis sp.); b. fig (Ficus cf. carica); c. grapevine (Vitis vinifera) [©A. Decaix].
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/7996/img-10.jpg
File image/jpeg, 807k
Titolo Fig. 9 – Results of the charcoal fragments study from Kohneh Pasgah Tepesi.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/7996/img-11.jpg
File image/jpeg, 425k

Autori

UMR 7041-ArScAn (CNRS, Sorbonne Universités), Maison René Ginouvès, 21 allée de l’université, 92023 Nanterre; UMR 7209-Archéozoologie, archéobotanique (CNRS, MNHN), CP 56, 55 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris

Institut für Archäologische Wissenschaften, Goethe Universität, Norbert-Wollheim-Platz 1, Fach 146, 60629 Frankfurt am Main

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Solamente il testo è utilizzabile con licenza CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Salvo diversa indicazione, per tutti agli altri elementi (illustrazioni, allegati importati) la copia non è autorizzata ("Tutti i diritti riservati").

Cerca su OpenEdition Search

Sarai reindirizzato su OpenEdition Search