logo
year 3, Issue 8 (9-2019)                   Parseh J. Archaeol. Stud. 2019, 3(8): 7-24 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Niakan L. (2019). New Evidence from Decorative Patterns of Early Bronze Age Pottery at Yanik Tepe, Iran. Parseh J. Archaeol. Stud.. 3(8), 7-24. doi:10.30699/PJAS.3.8.7
URL: http://journal.richt.ir/mbp/article-1-218-en.html
Associate Professor, Department of Archaeology Islamic Period, Research Institute of Cultural Heritage and Tourism (ICAR), Tehran, Iran. , lilyniakan@yahoo.com
Abstract:   (10961 Views)
Abstract
Beginning in 1948, archaeological surveys and excavations in northwest Iran brought to light evidence of cultural developments related to the movements of people who colonized vast parts of the Near East from northeast Anatolia to southern Levant in the late 4th and early 3rd millennium B.C., prompted by environmental changes, population boom or shortage of biological resources in their homeland. The period is best known in the archaeological literature as the Early Trans-Caucasian (ETC) or Kura-Araxes culture, and is distinguished, by a disparate black burnished pottery with incised decorations. Here is published for the time a sample of decorative patterns on the related pottery from Yanik Tepe. The main question of the study was: To what extent did the newcomer potters communicated on this pottery the artistic traditions they had brought with themselves from their homeland? Data gathered through museum and library enquiries were used to carry out a comparative study. Data analysis was of qualitative nature, and the study represented one of culture-historical. 
Keywords: Azarbaijan, Yanik Tepe, Early Bronze Age, Pottery, National Museum of Iran.

Introduction
The question central to this study is: Does the Kura-Araxian pottery tradition at Yanik Tepe reflect traits induced by indigenous experimentations, or it was simply developed via foreign inspirations and cultural interactions? 
As stated, the pottery assemblages from Yanik Tepe had remained intact since their initial movement to National Museum of Iran after the close of excavation. Preparatory work was therefore required before deciding on or attempting any sort of study. Accordingly, the whole collection was recorded and washed before the decorated sherds were singled out and sorted into such groups as geometric motifs, animal motifs, plain, and miscellaneous. This was followed by the documentation process that involved photographing, drawing and registering the entire formal and technical attributes of individual pieces. Attempts were made to exclude from the final sample the patterns that were identical to those already published by Burney in various places. Also to meet the diversity criterion, pieces were selected from as varied excavated exposures as Areas or Trenches H, HX, K, L, M, P and different Levels, viz. YT.HX3, YT161HX, YTHX4, YT.HX1, YTK3, YT.HH1, YTH5, YT.HH1A, YT.C5, YT.P2, YT.LIA, YT.HH10, YT.HX1, YT.L3PRMII, YT.P2, YT.39C, and YT.RH13.

Yanik Tepe
A key site in the archaeology of the eastern Urmia Lake Basin, Yanik Tepe is 30 km southwest of Tabriz and 6 km from Khosrowshahr, within the village of Tazeh Kand on the Talkheh Rud. Burney excavated the site in 1960, 1961 and 1962, shortly after its identification in 1958-9. Yanik Tepe consists of a high mound and a low mound, rising 16.5 m and 1.50 m from the surrounding lands, respectively. With an original total area of about 6 hectares, it represents a type-site of the Kura-Araxes culture in Azerbaijan (Burney 1963, 138). Large parts of the site are now destroyed. Typical of the culture that flourished at Yanik Tepe were round and rectilinear houses and a distinct pottery tradition. Most intriguing are those types that resemble the material from the vast cultural horizon of eastern Anatolia and the early Trans-Caucasia of the mid-3rd millennium BC. 
Building on the results of his excavations at Yanik Tepe, Burney divided the whole Kura-Araxes (or the ETC) sequence to the three discrete periods of ETC I, ETC II, and ETC III, where the earliest period marks the birth of the culture in its motherland, the second is associated with round structures and decorated pottery, and the latest sees the predominance of rectilinear architecture and virtual disappearance of decorations on pottery (Summers 2004, 619-620). For a more recent and detailed discussions on the chronology and dates as well as the stratigraphy of Yanik Tepe, the reader is referred to Summers 2013; 2014, 157-159. 
An idiosyncrasy of the Early Bronze Age at Yanik Tepe is the handmade, black or gray burnished pottery with incised patterns. The technique is reminiscent of woodcarving and was presumably inspired by the densely forested landscape of the homeland of bearers of the culture who came to the rather sparsely wooded regions of northwest and west Iran. The technique was widely applied to pottery along with excised patterns, filled with white and occasionally ocher pastes. 
Designs like birds and highly stylized rams or ibexes with curled horns, and bands of geometric motifs were carved on bowls, jars and footed pedestal vessels and small cups, the pottery forms common to the period. 
The Middle Bronze period marks a shift in architectural styles as the related houses were built in a rectilinear plan using mud bricks. The thick walls spoke of two-storied buildings. The use of decorations diminishes, and the so-called graphite burnished technique emerges on a few examples of cups. Vessels are relatively finer, and burnishing is more frequent. Pottery forms show no considerable differences between the two periods (Burney 1962). However, the so-called Nakhichevan lugs, common to the latter period, occur now only in a vestigial form. 

Kura-Araxes Pottery of Yanik Tepe
This section gives a description of the pottery with a special focus on decorations, along with a series of so far unpublished illustrations, which besides enriching the existing literature on the pottery history, are intended to improve the current picture of the evolution of pottery styles through the long Kura-Araxian horizon at Yanik Tepe. It is notable that, as stated earlier, the pieces and decorations published here have not been introduced in any earlier publications and have been selected from various trenches and levels to ensure a representative sample to the possible extent. 
The Kura-Araxian pottery, coming in disparate wares and decorations, represent a new style that newcomer artisans had brought with themselves to northwest Iran. It is characterized by dark gray or shiny black or light brown color; vessels are handmade, contain mineral tempers, and show a burnished surface bearing an assortment of motifs such as spirals, “ram horns” and concentric circles or “eyes” (Burney and Lang 1971). In the Kura-Araxes Period I, rail rims were common, the Nakhichevan lugs were not yet emerged, and some Chalcolithic forms and decorative techniques persisted (Glumac and Anthony 1992). Related material occurs at most sites in Caucasia, the eastern fringes of Anatolia, and Geoy Tepe K1 (Sagona 2000).
The Period II is distinguished by the abundance of elbow handles and advent of semi-circular Nakhichevan lugs; the rail rims are utterly absent (Seyedov 2000). Notable in the assemblages is the ubiquitous concentric circles or “eyes” and incised triangles or chevrons. The pottery with its distinctive incised decorations shows influences from neighboring spheres. Various motifs are discernible. Animals, birds and fish occur in abundance. Birds appear as stylized representations on jars and bowls with decorations always reserved for the base or close to it. Also present are very simple geometric designs, bands raging from plain examples of undulating lines to those of a very intricate combination of nested designs, horizontal grooves or hatches, zigzags and doted patterns, rows of geometric motifs like lozenges with adjoining triangles filled with a various combinations of incised dots in diverse arrangements, swastikas, small lozenges and slanting motifs. Spirals and concentric circles were applied in incised form and evolved into an excised form with the related patterns filled with a white paste or lime. A frequent motif is the sharply angled triangles evoking the mountain motif as is the incised patterns imitating cuneiform signs. They are much finer compared with the ordinary handmade pieces. The Kura-Arax II material from Yanik Tepe find parallels in Geoy K1, Yakhvali, Ravaz (Kohna Shahar), Baruj, Haftavan VII and Godin IV (Burney 1961, 1962; Kleiss and Kroll 1979; Asurov 2000).
Typical to the Kura-Araxes III assemblages are the incised spirals and loop handles attached to the rim. The concentric circles occur in a higher frequency (Burney and Lang 1971, 67; Seyedov 2000, 19). Nakhichevan lugs show a gradual decline. Related pottery is known from Geoy K3, Godin IV, Shengavit IV, Kul Tepe of Nakhichevan, Kvatskhelebi in Georgia and sites in the Koban area of East Anatolia (Burney 1961, 1962; Burney and Lang 1971; Sagona 2000).
Full-Text [PDF 1304 kb]   (1400 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special Archeology
Received: 2019/02/20 | Accepted: 2019/05/18 | Published: 2019/09/21

References
1. - رضالو، رضا؛ و زبان‌بند، نسرین (۱۳۹۴). «فرهنگ یانیق یا کوراارس، تأکیدی بر عنوان کوراارس براساس مطالعات آماری». مجلۀ پژوهش‌های باستان‌شناسی ایران، شمارۀ ۸، دورۀ پنجم، بهار و تابستان، صص: ۷-۱۷.
2. - شهرابی، م. (۱۳۷۳)، دریاها و دریاچه‌های ایران. سازمان زمین‌شناسی کشور.
3. - فاضلی‌نشلی،حسن؛ و آجورلو، بهرام (۱۳۸۳). «درآمدی بر بسط فرهنگ کوراارس در اواخر هزارۀ چهارم قبل از میلاد در دشت قزوین». مجموعه مقالات همایش بین‌المللی باستان‌شناسی ایران، به‌کوشش: مسعود آذرنوش، تهران: پژوهشکدۀ باستان‌شناسی، صص: ۱۸۱-۱۹۱.
4. - قربانی، حمیدرضا؛ و زنگنه، لعیا (۱۳۹۴). «بررسی و تحلیل ویژگی های بصری و سبک تصویری نقوش سفال‌های فرهنگ کوراارس (براساس محوطه یانیک تپه)«. مجلۀ جستارهای باستان‌شناسی ایران پیش از اسلام، دورۀ ۱، شمارۀ ۱، صص: ۸۵-۹۷.
5. عمرانی، بهروز، (۱۳۸۴)، «عصر مفرغ قدیم در شمال‌غرب فلات ایران».مجموعه مقالات همایش بین‌المللی باستان‌شناسی ایران، به‌کوشش: مسعود آذرنوش، تهران: پژوهشکدۀ باستان‌شناسی، صص: ۱۶۹-۱۸۰.
6. - علیون، صمد (۱۳۹۰)، یانیق‌تپه خسرو شهر، باستان‌شناسی آذربایجان (۲)، نشر اختر، چاپ اول.
7. - علیزاده، کریم؛ و آذرنوش، مسعود (1382). «بررسی روشمند تپه‌باروج: روابط فرهنگی دوسوی رود ارس». باستان‌شناسی و تاریخ. سال هفدهم. شمارۀ دوم. بهار و تابستان. صص: 22-3.
8. - علیزاده، کریم (1391). «بازخوانی نظریه مهاجرت در باستان‌شناسی و گسترش فرهنگ کوراارس در خاورنزدیک باستان». باستان‌شناسی و تاریخ. سال بیست‌وپنجم. شمارۀ دوم. صص: 94-79.
9. - مازیار، سپیده؛ و زلقی، علی (۱۳۹۰). «کرانه‌های جنوبی رود ارس در گذر زمان با نگاهی به پراکنش فضایی و زمانی استقرارها». فصلنامۀ علمی، فنی هنری، شمارۀ ۷۹، صص: ۶۱-۷۲.
10. - محمدی، میرروح‌الله (1391). «مطالعۀ فرهنگ کوراارس در دشت مغان براساس سفال‌های به‌دست‌آمده از بررسی باستان‌شناختی نادر‌تپه‌سی اصلاندوز، آذربایجان‌شرقی». مجموعه‌مقالات سومین همایش باستان‌شناسان جوانان ایران، تهران: انتشارات بصیر.
11. - مترجم، عباس؛ و نیکنامی، کمال‌الدین (1390). «عصرمفرغ قدیم در شرق زاگرس‌مرکزی ایران». مطالعات باستان‌شناسی. شمارۀ 4. صص: 54-35.
12. - مترجم، عباس (۱۳۹۰). «نشانه‌هایی از یک مهاجرت قومی به شمال‌غرب و غرب ایران در هزارۀ سوم قبل از میلاد در پرتو کاوش‌های باستان‌شناسی». مجلۀ پژوهش‌های باستان‌شناسی ایران (نامه باستان‌شناسی)، شمارۀ ۱، دورۀ اول، پاییز و زمستان.صص: ۱۳۷-۱۴۶.
14. - Aşurov, S. H. (2002). Naxçıvan'da İlk Tünc Keramikası. Baku: Nafta Press
15. - Burney, C. A. (1958). “Eastern Anatolia in the Chalcolithic and early Bronze age”. Anatolia Studies 8. pp: 157-209.
16. - Burney, C. A. (1961). “The Excavation at yanik tape ,west Iran, report”. Iraq. 23. pp:138-53,
17. - Burney, C. A. (1962). “The excavation at yanik tape ,Azerbajan ,1961,second Preiminary report”. Iraq. 24, pp: 134-49.
18. - Burney, C. A. (1972). “The Eexcavation at Haftvan ,1971 ,Third Preiminary report”. IRAN ,no. 11. pp:158-72.
19. - Burney, C. A. & Lang, D. (1971). The People of the Hills, Ancient Ararat and Caucasus, New York.
20. - Burton Brown, T. (1951). Excavation in Azarbajan,1948. (London 1951).
21. - Dyson, R. H. (1965). “Problems of Protohistoric Iran as seen from Hasanlu”. JNES 24/3: 193-217
22. - Fazali Nashli, H. & Abbasnezhad Seresti, R. (2005). “Social Transformation and interregional interaction in the Qazvin Plain During the 5 , 4 and 3 millennia B. C”. Archaologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan Band 37 . pp: 21-24.
23. - Glumac, P. & Anthony, D. (1992). “Culture & Environment in the Prehistoric Caucasus: the Neolithic through the Early Bronze Age”, Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, R.W. Erich (ed.), Vol.1, Chicago & London, The University of Chicago Press, pp: 196-206.
24. - Maziar, S. (2010). “Excavations at Kohne Pasgah Tepesi, The Araxes Valley, W Iran. First Perliminary Report”. Journal of Ancient Eastern Studies. Vol 47. p: 169.
25. - Mohammadifar, Y. & Motarjem. A, et al. (2009). “Tepe Pissa: new investigations at a Kura, Araxes site in central western Iran”. Antiquity Vol 83 Issue 320. UK.
26. - Rothman, M. S. (2015). “Early Bronze Age Migrants and Ethnicity in the Middle Eastern Mountain Zone”. proceedings of the National Academyof Sciences 112 (30): 9190-95.dio:10.1073/ pnas.1502220112.
27. - Sagona, A (2000). “Excavation at Sos Hoyuk, 1998 to 1999: Fifth Preliminary Report”, Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 37, pp: 56-127.
28. - Sagona, A. (2014). “Retthinking the Kura-Araxes Genesis”. Paleorient 40 (2): 23-46.
29. - Schachner, A. (2001). “Azarbaycan: Eine-terra Incognita der vordcrasiatichcm Archaologic”. Mitteilungen Der Duetsehen Orient Geselschaft Zu berlin 133. pp: 251-322.
30. - Seyedov, A. G. (2000). Naxiçevanın İlk Tünc Dövrü Abidələri və Onlaıın Dövrələşdirməsi. Bakı Çaşio.
31. - Summers, G. D. (1984). “A study of Architecture, Pottery and other material from Yanik Tepe, HaftavanTepe VIII and Related Sites”. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology. University of Manchester.
32. - Swiny, St. (1975). “Survey in north-west Iran, 1971”. East and west 25, pp: 77-96.
33. - Voigt, M. & Dyson, R. H. (1992). “The chronology of Iran, 8000 to 2000 B.C.”. in: R. W. Ehrich (Ed.) Chronologies In old World Archaeology. Chicago, London. pp: 122-178.
34. - Young, T. C. J. (1969). Excavations in Godintepe; First Progress Report. Royal Ontario Museum.

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.