logo
year 7, Issue 26 (2-2024)                   Parseh J. Archaeol. Stud. 2024, 7(26): 7-31 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


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

Binandeh A, Naderian N, De Paolo S. (2024). Technological and Typological Analysis of Stone Tools from Tepe Naneh in the Chalcolithic Period. Parseh J. Archaeol. Stud.. 7(26), 7-31. doi:10.22034/PJAS.7.26.7
URL: http://journal.richt.ir/mbp/article-1-835-en.html
1- Assistant Professor, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran , a.binandeh@basu.ac.ir
2- Graduated M.A. in Archaeology, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran
3- Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology and Art Institute of Heritage Science National Council of Research (CNR), Rome, Italy
Abstract:   (1985 Views)
Abstract
The Qaleh Naneh site in Iran is the largest prehistoric site in the basin of Lake Zaribar that has been excavated. The site is located in the northwest of Iran, southeast of Lake Zaribar, and is connected with northern Mesopotamia through the Shiler Pass. The Chalcolithic period, especially the Ubaid and Uruk cultures, is the longest period of settlement in the site. This region was more connected with Mesopotamia in the prehistoric period. Stone tools are an essential component in understanding the socio-economic structures of prehistoric societies. However, the study of stone tools of the Chalcolithic period in Western Iran and the Zaribar Lake basin is limited. The study of stone tools in the Qaleh Naneh site provides valuable insights into the material culture and social organization of prehistoric societies. Structural changes in technological social networks from Ubaid to post-Ubaid may be observed in various aspects of stone tool production. The relationship between the methods used and the social changes of the inhabitants of Tepe Naneh has been explained as much as possible based on the stone artifacts. The stone artifacts obtained from the site were produced by a special group and spread throughout the region and the Zaribar Lake basin. The pottery evidence also shows extensive inter-regional connections. At least in the late Chalcolithic period, the production of stone artifacts in this region was on a workshop scale. Similar to the sites in the fifth and fourth millennium BC in northern Mesopotamia where stone artifacts were produced near the sources of raw materials and outside the settlements, the production model at Tepe Naneh is similar to northern Mesopotamia according to the type of stone artifacts. 
Keywords: Lake Zaribar Basin, Tape Naneh, Chalcolithic Period, Stone Tools

Introduction
The archaeological site is located at 16km. south-east of the modern city of Marivan, and is partially occupied along the southern and western slope by the modern village of the same name which has partially altered the original conformation of the settlement. The Qaleh Naneh site in Iran is one of the largest prehistoric sites in the basin of Lake Zaribar and is connected with northern Mesopotamia through the Shiler Pass. The site has been excavated extensively, but the study of stone tools from the Chalcolithic period in Western Iran and the Zaribar Lake basin is limited. The excavation of three 2m wide step-trenches along the eastern, northern, and western slopes of the site enabled the study of occupational deposits from the Chalcolithic to Islamic periods. The Ubaid phase 3-4, in the lower layers of Trenches A and B, also common are Uruk Ware in late chalcolithic period. The study of the cycle of production, consumption, repair, replacement, and discarding of stone tools is investigated under the title of analysis of stone industries in archeology (Jayez, 2016). The study of stone tools in the post-Paleolithic sites is usually less noticed by archaeologists, and the study of stone tools of the Chalcolithic period in the Zaribar Lake basin is rare. 
Stone tools are an essential component in understanding the socio-economic structures of prehistoric societies. This research aims to fill this gap and examine the obtained stone artifacts in terms of their construction, use, and relationship with social changes. The stone artifacts obtained from the site were divided based on morphology, manufacturing technology, mineral type, color spectrum, raw material used, and typology. The general characteristics of the artifacts were also considered according to the texture. The study found that the stone artifacts were likely produced by a special group and spread throughout the region and the Zaribar Lake basin. The most important questions in this field:
1- Where were the stone tools of Tepe Naneh produced? 2- Has there been a connection between the method used and the social changes of Tepe Naneh residents?
It seems that; the study also found that there was a connection between the method used in producing stone tools and the social changes of Tepe Naneh residents. The production model at Tepe Naneh is similar to northern Mesopotamia, where stone artifacts were produced near the sources of raw materials and outside the settlements.

Discussion 
The structure of prehistoric stone assemblages is different from the Paleolithic era, but they still reflect many economic complexities of societies. In the Chalcolithic period, one of the characteristics of the artifacts is the single-use nature of many of them, which were produced in a non-specialized way or for a wide range of domestic activities. The other group of artifacts are blades, micro blades, and groovers, which are semi-specialized and specialized. This process was created in the Neolithic period and continued until the Bronze and Iron Ages. Over the course of several thousand years, metal replaced stone technology (Rosen, 1997) .The study of raw material sources, their availability and abundance, and how they were used are important in understanding the economic systems of that era and the evolution of various aspects of human behavior. The study of raw stone dispersion is a suitable solution for solving the problems related to the living places of prehistoric humans and the surrounding areas, exchange and mutual social, economic, and cultural relations (Inizan, 1999).
After studying 271 pieces of stone tools from the Qaleh Naneh site, three different types of stone were identified, and the most commonly used raw material for tool production was different types of chert with different colors. The assemblages show that gray chert was used for 35.79% of the tools, and brown for 26.94%, far more than other colors. In total, chert tools include the largest number of tools at 91.88%. Additionally, 75.7% of all tools were obsidian tools, which is one of the imported and non-native stones of the region. The evidence shows that almost all obsidian tools obtained from sites in the west and northwest of Iran are from Armenian and Turkish obsidian sources, while pieces of obsidian tools from Naneh were brought from eastern Anatolian mines. Only one piece of sandstone was obtained, and in general, most of the tools were produced of silicate stones. The study of raw materials used for tool production provides valuable insights into the socio-economic structures of prehistoric societies in the Zaribar Lake basin and their connections with neighboring regions. The use of non-native stones, such as obsidian, indicates that the inhabitants of Qaleh Naneh had extensive inter-regional connections. The study also highlights the importance of considering the raw material sources and their availability in understanding the technological developments and socio-economic structures of prehistoric societies. 

Conclusion  
Tepe Naneh is a prehistoric site located in the Zaribar Lake basin, which was one of the largest settlements during the Chalcolithic period. The site has provided valuable insights into the production and distribution of stone tools in prehistoric societies. The pottery evidence shows extensive inter-regional connections, and at least during the Late Chalcolithic period, the production of stone artifacts in this region was on a workshop scale. At the end of the Ubaid period, the number and variety of stone tools decreased, which coincides with social and economic changes seen in many sites, including Tepe Naneh. At the same time, wide communication networks were formed. The trenches excavated on three sides of the site show a large structure in the late Chalcolithic- Uruk period, with visible changes in different aspects. The evidence of Naneh shows that this area in prehistoric period mostly related to Mesopotamia than western Iran. Lower layers martial dated to the beginning of the fifth millennium, which slightly overlapped with the Early Northern Ubaid. The Uruk phase of the Late Chalcolithic (end of the 4th millennium BC) has been identified in two trenches (A and C): typical Bevelled Rim Bowls attested in different size classes and mixtures.
The study of stone tools at Tepe Naneh raises two important questions: where were the stone tools produced? And is there a connection between the method used and the social changes of the site’s residents? The investigation of different stone hand tools at Tepe Naneh shows that part of the process of producing hand tools was done on-site, although extensive excavation is needed to identify the exact location. However, the limited number of core stone types and the percentage of stone tools suggest that most of the preparation and production steps were done outside the site. There is also no evidence for the production of obsidian tools at the site. The analyses indicate that the obsidian of the site comes from two sources, both located in Eastern Anatolia, which has reached this area through a wide network of obsidian. It was first imported to northern Mesopotamia and then to Marivan region. The evidence suggests that the production of stone tools was not limited to on-site activities and involved extensive inter-regional connections. Further excavation and research at Tepe Naneh may shed more light on the prehistoric societies that inhabited this region and their technological advancements and complex interactions and exchanges between different prehistoric communities.
Full-Text [PDF 1668 kb]   (574 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special Archeology
Received: 2023/03/2 | Accepted: 2023/06/20 | Published: 2024/02/29

References
1. - اینیزان، ماری‌لوئیز؛ بالینگر، میشل‌ردرن؛ روش، هلن؛ و تیکسیه، ژاک، (1389). فناوری و واژه‌شناسی دست‌افزار سنگی. ترجمۀ الهام قصیدیان، تهران: سمیرا.
2. - جایز، مژگان؛ و شکویی، مریم، (1396). «ابزارآلات سنگی کشاورزی و شکارورزی در اواخر پیش‌ازتاریخ جنوب لوت». مجموعه مقالات و کاتالوگ نمایشگاه فرهنگ‌های پیش‌ازتاریخ حاشیۀ بیابان لوت به روایت آثار موزۀ ملی ایران، به‌کوشش: محمدحسین عزیزی‌خرانقی، فریدون بیگلری، ام‌البنین غفوری، جبرئیل نوکنده، سمیرا عطارپور، محبوبه قلیچ‌خانی، تهران: پژوهشگاه میراث‌فرهنگی و گردشگری، موزۀ ملی ایران: 40-25.
3. - حریریان، حمید؛ مترجم، عباس؛ و ساعدموچشی، امیر، (۱۴۰۰). «مطالعۀ دست‌افزارهای سنگی محوطه‌های دورۀ مس‌وسنگ شرق استان کردستان». مطالعات باستان‌شناسی پارسه، ۵ (۱۷): ۲۶-۷. DOI: 10.30699/PJAS.5.17.7؛ http://journal.richt.ir/mbp/article-1-461-fa.html
4. - ساعد‌موچشی، امیر؛ محمدی‌قصریان، سیروان؛ و عزیزی، اقبال، (1396). «تپۀ قلعه‌ننه شهرستان مریوان: زیستگاهی باستانی در غرب ایران». دوفصلنامۀ علمی تخصصی باستان‌شناخت، 4 (5): 20-7. URL: https://uma.ac.ir/find.php?item=145.6218.16056.fa
5. - محمدی‌فر، یعقوب؛ و مترجم، عباس، (1381). «بررسی باستان‌شناسی شهرستان مریوان، فصل اول، زمستان 1381». تهران: مرکز اسناد پژوهشکدۀ باستان‌شناسی (منتشرنشده).
6. - ملکی، حسام، (1396). لیتولوژی (سنگ‌شناسی مریوان). http://hesammaleki59.blogfa.com/post/10
8. - Abdi, K., (2001). “Malyan 1999”. IRAN, 39(1): 73-98. DOI: 10.1080/05786967.2001.11834385
9. - Abdi, K.; Nokandeh, G.; Azadi, A.; Biglari, F.; Heydari, S.; Farmani, D. & Mashkour, M., (2002). “Tuwah khoshkeh: A middle chalcolithic mobile pastoralist camp-site in the Islamabad Plain, West Central Zagros Mountains, Iran”. IRAN, 40(1):: 43-74. DOI: 10.2307/4300618
10. - Abedi, A.; Mohammadi, V. D.; Steiniger, D. & Glascock, M. D., (2018). “The provenance of Kul Tepe obsidian artifacts: Syunik and the highlands of Armenia as possible seasonal pastureland”. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 21: 406-412. DOI: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2018.08.027
11. - Agha‐Aligol, D.; Lamehi‐Rachti, M.; Oliaiy, P.; Shokouhi, F.; Farahani, M. F.; Moradi, M. & Farshi Jalali, F., (2015). “Characterization of Iranian obsidian artifacts by PIXE and multivariate statistical analysis”. Geoarchaeology, 30(3): 261-270. DOI: 10.1002/gea.21509
12. - Al Quntar, S. & Abu Jayyab, A. K., (2014). “The political economy of the Upper Khabur in the Late Chalcolithic 1–2: Ceramic mass-production, standardization and specialization. Preludes to Urbanism”. The Late Chalcolithic of Mesopotamia, Cambridge: 89-108.
13. - 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. DOI: 10.1016/j.quaint.2018.01.032
14. - Binandeh, A.; Glascock, M. D. & Oga, A., (2020). “Origin of obsidian tools from Ubaid and Rick Abad in Little Zab basin, Northwestern Iran”. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 32: 102395. DOI: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102395
15. - Chabot, J. & Pelegrin, J., (2012). “Two examples of pressure blade production with a lever: recent research from the southern Caucasus (Armenia) and Northern Mesopotamia (Syria, Iraq)”. The Emergence of Pressure Blade Making: from origin to modern experimentation: 181-198. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-2003-3-6
16. - Ghorabi, S.; Glascock, M. D.; Khademi, F.; Rezaie, A. & Feizkhah, M., (2008). “A geochemical investigation of obsidian artifacts from sites in northwestern Iran”. IAOS Bulletin, 39: 7-10. URL: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3q96609n
17. - Ghorabi, S.; Khademi Nadooshan, F.; Glascock, M. D.; Hejabri Noubari, A. & Ghorbani, M., (2010). “Provenance of obsidian tools from northwestern Iran using X-ray fluorescence analysis and neutron activation analysis”. IAOS Bulletin, 43: 14-20.URL: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0z60q7fk
18. - Giraud, J.; Baldi, J. S.; Bonilauri, S.; Mashkour, M.; Lemée, M.; Pichon, F. & Jameel, J., (2019). “Human occupation along the foothills of Northwestern Zagros during the Late Pleistocene and the Holocene in the Rania and Peshdar plains. First results of the French archaeological mission in the Governorate of Soulaimaniah (Iraqi Kurdistan)”. Paléorient. Revue pluridisciplinaire de préhistoire et de protohistoire de l’Asie du Sud-Ouest et de l’Asie centrale, (45-2): 85-119. Doi: 10.4000/paleorient.702
19. - Haerinck, E. & Overlaet, B., (1996). The chalcolithic period Parchinah and Hakalan: Belgian Archaeological Mission in Iran, the excavations in Luristan, Pusht-i Kuh (1965-1979). Royal Museums of Art and History.
20. - Hariryan, H.; Motarjem, A. & Saed-Mucheshi, A., (2021). “Preliminary Study of Chalcolithic Lithic in the East of Kurdistan Province”. Parseh J Archaeol Stud, 5(17): 7-26. doi: 10.30699/PJAS.5.17.7 (In Persain). URL: http://journal.richt.ir/mbp/article-1-461-en.html
21. - Hermon, S., (2008). Socio-economic aspects of Chalcolithic (4500-3500 BC) societies in the Southern Levant: a lithic perspective (Vol. 1744). Archaeopress. Inizan, M. L. (1999). Technology and terminology of knapped stone: followed by a multilingual vocabulary arabic, english, french, german, greek, italian, portuguese, spanish (Vol. 5). Cercle de Recherches et d'Etudes Préhistoriques. Translaeted by, E.Ghasidian, 2010. Tehran. (in Persian).
22. - Jayez, M. & Shakooie, M., (2017). “Stone tools for agriculture and hunting in late prehistoric South Lut”. In: Kharanaghi, M. H. A., Biglari, F., Ghafoori, O., Nokandeh, J., & Pour, S. A. (Eds.), Proceedings and catalogue of exhibition: Prehistoric cultures at the periphery of the Lut desert on the bases of the Iran National Museum collections, on the occasion of inscription of the Lut desert in the World Heritage List (UNESCO) (pp. 25-40). Tehran: Research Institute for Cultural Heritage and Tourism; National Museum of Iran. (in Persian)
23. - Khademi Nadooshan, F.; Philips, S. C. & Safari, M., (2007). “WDXRF spectroscopy of obsidian tools in the northwest of Iran”. International Association for Obsidian Studies Bulletin, 37: 3-6. URL: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5g25r02s
24. - Khademi, F. N.; Abedi, A.; Glascock, M. D.; Eskandari, N. & Khazaee, M., (2013). “Provenance of prehistoric obsidian artefacts from Kul Tepe, northwestern Iran using X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis”. J. Archaeol. Sci., 40 (4): 1956–1965 (Elsevier Ltd). DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2012.12.032
25. - Khalidi, L. & Gratuze, B., (2010). “Late chalcolithic lithic assemblage at Tell Hamoukar’s southern extension”. Berytus, 53(54): 2010-2011. URL: https://www.aub.edu.lb/Berytus/Pages/default.aspx
26. - Khazaee, M.; Glascock, M. D.; Masjedi, P.; Abedi, A. & Khademi Nadooshan, F., (2011). “Origins of obsidian tools from Kul Tepe, Iran”. IAOS Bull., 45: 14–17.
27. - Maleki, H., (2018). Litilogy of Marivan. URL: http://hesammaleki1359.blogfa.com/post/242
28. - Maziar, S. & Glascock, M. D., (2017). “Communication networks and economical interactions: sourcing obsidian in the Araxes River basin”. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 14: 31-37. DOI: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.05.021
29. - Mohammadifar, Y. & Motarjem, A., (2002). “Report of Marivan survey”. Unpublished Report, ICHTO archive. (in Persian)
30. - Niknami, K. A.; Amirkhiz, A. C. & Glascock, M. D., (2010). “Provenance studies of Chalcolithic obsidian artefacts from near Lake Urmia, northwestern Iran using WDXRF analysis”. Archaeometry, 52(1): 19-30. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-4754.2009.00474.x
31. - Nishiaki, Y.; Taheri, M. H. & Sardari, A., (2018). “Lithic Industry of the Early Chalcolithic in the Southwest Zagros: New Insights from the Middle Bakun Site of Tal-e Mash Karim, Iran”. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 55: 96-111. DOI: 10.2143/ANES.55.0.3284688
32. - Noori, S.; Niknami, K. A.; Ajorloo, B. & Sola, M. A., (2013). “A preliminary analysis on the provenance study of the tepe boynoo obsidians by PIXE method”. In: Razani, M., Ajorloo, B. (Eds.), Application of Scientific Analyses in Archaeometry and the Conservation of Cultural Heritage: 17–35.
33. - Petrosyan, A., (2018). “Some notes on lithic materials from Tsaghkunk, a Neolithic-Chalcolithic site in the Ararat plain”. ARAMAZD: Armenian Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 12(1): 35-51. DOI: 10.32028/ajnes.v12i1.890
34. - Rosen, S. A., (1997). Lithics after the Stone Age: a handbook of stone tools from the Levant. Rowman Altamira.
35. - Rosen, S. A., (2013). “Arrowheads, axes, ad hoc, and sickles: an introduction to aspects of lithic variability across the Near East in the Bronze and Iron Ages”. Lithic Technology, 38(3): 141-149. DOI: 10.1179/0197726113Z.00000000023
36. - Saed Muchashi, A.; Mohammadi Ghasrian, S. & Azizi, E., (2018). “Tepe Qaleh Naneh in Marivan: An archaeological site in Western Iran”. Bastanshenakht, 4/5: 7-20 (in Persian). URL: https://uma.ac.ir/find.php?item=145.6218.16056.fa
37. - Saed Mucheshi, A.; Esna-Ashari, A.; Glascock, M. D.; Oga, A. & Karimi, Z., (2021). “Analytical Investigation of Obsidian Tools from Kurdistan Province, Iran: Determination of Exchange Paths during the Chalcolithic Period”. Mediterranean Archaeology & Archaeometry, 21(3): 161-175. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5727492
38. - Saed Mucheshi, A.; Esna-Ashari, A.; Sharifi, M.; Motarjem, A. & Glascock, M. D., (2023). “Sources of Late Chalcolithic obsidian artefacts from Tepe Gheshlagh, Kurdistan province, western Iran”. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 47: 103702. DOI: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2022.103702
39. - Tardy, N.; Gratuze, B.; Kalantaryan, I. & Perello, B., (2018). “Lithic technology from the chalcolithic layers of Getahovit 2”. In: Ancient Armenia at the crossroads. B. PERELLO; R. BADALYAN; K. MELIKSETIAN (Eds). Lyon.
40. - Thomalsky, J., (2012). “Lithic industries of the Ubaid and Post-Ubaid period in northern Mesopotamia”. Publications de l'Institut Français d'Études Anatoliennes, 27.1: 417-439.
41. - Vardi, J. & Gilead, I., (2013). “Chalcolithic - Early Bronze Age I Transition in the Southern Levant: The Lithic Perspective”. Paléorient, 39(1): 111–123. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43576766
42. URL: http://hesammaleki1359.blogfa.com/post/10-

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.