logo
year 7, Issue 23 (5-2023)                   Parseh J. Archaeol. Stud. 2023, 7(23): 39-60 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


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

Tavakoli Zaniani A, Abbasnejad Seresti R, Jayez M. (2023). Introduction and Analysis of Technology and Typology of Lithic Artifacts Discovered from the Excavations of 2020 in Touq Tepe Neka, Mazandaran. Parseh J. Archaeol. Stud.. 7(23), 39-60. doi:10.30699/PJAS.7.23.39
URL: http://journal.richt.ir/mbp/article-1-851-en.html
1- M. A. in Archaeology, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Art and Architecture, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran
2- Associate Professor, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Art and Architecture, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran , r.abbasnejad@umz.ac.ir
3- Assistant Professor, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract:   (2998 Views)
Abstract
In this article, the production systems of lithic artifacts during the Neolithic period of eastern Mazandaran has been studied based on the 2020 excavation of Touq Tepe using a descriptive-analytical approach. Examining the technology, typology, and the effect of subsistence on applying methods of technologies and studying the production methods of various artifacts were among this research project’s most important questions and aims. Touq Tepe is located in the central district of Neka, near Hotukosh mountains, one of Iran’s most important Chert sources. These artifacts were not locally made at the site and part of the production sequence took place elsewhere. Since there was no blade core in the assemblage, it seems that the blades came to the site in already-prepared form and mostly retouching and finalizing processes of the debitages were done at the site. Evidence such as a large striking platform, dual striking bulb, and dented striking bulb indicates that the technology used in the Touq Tepe lithic artifact was either direct percussion with a soft hammer or indirect percussion. Some of the most important characteristics of the assemblage are the abundance of over-flake and notched-denticulated tools and the shortage of scrapers (thumbnail and geometric) and tools with sickle gloss. The lithic industry of Touq Tepe resembles the Mesolithic stone industry of Komishan Cave regarding its technological composition. The production method of the stone artifacts in the Neolithic was likely a continuum of the Caspian Mesolithic period. The subsistence economy has a direct effect on the production method of artifacts. Our study showed that due to the high environmental capacity of the studied area in providing prehistoric societies with food, there was no dramatic change in the typology and technology of lithic tools on the site despite the change of the subsistence towards food production. 
Keywords: Eastern Plains of Mazandaran, Touq Tepe, Neolithic, Developments in Technology and Subsistence, Lithic Artifacts.

Introduction
In the process of Neolithization, and then during the Neolithic period, the hunter-gatherer subsistence transformed into domesticate-farming (Bar-Yosef & Meadow, 1995; Barker, 2006; Hole, 1984; Bar-Yosef & Belfer-Cohen, 1992). With those mentioned transformations came a metamorphosis in lithic tools technology. Thus, technological and subsistence developments are two fundamental issues in Neolithic research.  
Proper archaeological research has shown western and southwestern parts of the Iranian plateau as one of the major zones of Neolithization. Thus, these regions have absorbed most of the research interests regarding the Neolithic period (Roustaei, 2014). Meanwhile, most of the reports on eastern Mazandaran are about Mesolithic sites as far as there is little known about this period even in sites with in situ Neolithic layers like Kamarband (Belt) Cave (Jayez, 2012: 284). Therefore, one of the important aims of this article is to deal with this period through new archaeological findings in Touq Tepe, a site located in Neka Plain, and study the technology and typology of its lithic artifacts.
The current research has studied the technology and typology of stone artifacts from the Neolithic layers of Touq Tepe and the subsistence of its inhabitants, which is useful to clarify the processes of change in the technology and typology of artifacts from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic period and open the way for future studies. Given the proximity of the site to one of the largest and finest Chert sources in Iran, the artifacts were studied for their raw material so a logical relationship between raw material abundance and the diversity of lithic artifacts could be established. Naturally, larger and thicker tools were used for rougher tasks. The production methods of these artifacts were mostly direct and indirect percussion. 
In this study, newly-found lithic artifacts from Neolithic layers of Touq Tepe were first studied separately for classification, typology, sourcing, and investigation of the Neolithic subsistence economy. The findings were classified into four types: tools, debitages, cores, and natural stones. Eventually, the results were compared to published data of the nearby sites from quantity and diversity points of view to establish a foundation for general knowledge about subsistence in the Neolithic period. 

Disccussion
Totally, 348 stone artifacts were recovered from Neolithic layers of Toq Tepe. This assemblage has 6 cores (1.72%) including 3 flake cores, 2 microblade single-side cores, and 1 irregular mixed core. A total of 259 (74.43%) artifacts are simple debitages including 135 flakes, 43 blades, 15 microblades, 2 burin spalls, 35 chips, and 27 debris. 81 (23.28%) tools consist of retouched (31 retouched flakes, 24 retouched blades, and 10 retouched microblades), notched tools, notched-denticulate tools, backed microblades and multi-functional tools and 2 (0.57%) naturally occurred stones. 
The places of flake and microblade on cores are highly irregular and their exterior angles are less than 90 degrees. The blades and microblades have mostly irregular ridges and a profile with low curvature. The ventral surfaces are not completely flat and have waves on them. The thickness of the striking platform in blades and microblades is quite low and flakes with a thick striking platform and prominent striking bulb with dents over the bulb are also rare. In this assemblage, dented striking bulbs are more common in flakes, blades, and finally microblades, but completely absent in burins. 
The flakes were rarely made using direct percussion and in the majority of cases they were produced using direct percussion with a soft hammer or indirect percussion. All the blades were made using direct percussion with a soft hammer or indirect percussion. In microblades, considering the faded striking bulb and their paralleled edges, it is probable that the pressure technique was used Although no pressure microblade core was found. All the lithic artifacts of Touq Tepe were made out of Chert with various color spectrums but mostly from light to dark brown. 

Conclusion
The number of simple debitages is far more than debitages turned into tools and those that turned into tools have larger dimensions and irregular retouches. Based on the comparison of the average sizes of the tools made over the flake blank and the simple debitages on the flake blank and the high ratio of chips to the tools, it can be concluded that the process of making and converting simple debitages to tools was taken place in the site and according to the immediate needs thus most of the retouches are irregular. Scrapers were mostly made over flake blanks and have denticulate or notched-denticulate retouches that do not need any special pre-design. 
The lack of blade cores and the low percentage of blade’s simple debitages support this hypothesis that the blades were imported into the site in already-prepared form and then retouched at the site. In the Touq Tepe lithic industry, there was an emphasis on flake production due to the availability of raw materials. The technical evidence over the debitages of stone artifacts of Touq Tepe confirms that debitages were detached from cores using direct percussion with a soft hammer or indirect percussion.

Acknowledgments
The financial supports for carrying out the excavation program of Touq Tepe Neka have been provided by the General Department of Cultural Heritage, Tourism and Handicrafts of Mazandaran Province. We are also grateful to the Research Institute of Cultural Heritage and Tourism and the Iranian Center for Archaeological Research for issuing the excavation permit. The members of the excavation team, who were students of University of Mazandaran and experts of the mentioned General Department, cooperated and worked hard in the terrible conditions of the corona virus; these loved ones are also sincerely appreciated.
Full-Text [PDF 1306 kb]   (833 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special Archeology
Received: 2022/02/15 | Accepted: 2022/04/19 | Published: 2023/05/22

References
1. - توکلی‌زانیانی، علی، (1401). «مطالعۀ فناوری و معیشت دوران نوسنگی دشت‌های شرقی مازندران بر پایۀ مطالعۀ دست‌افزارهای سنگی یافته‌شده از کاوش‌های 1399 در توق‌تپه نکا، مازندران». پایان‌نامۀ کارشناسی‌ارشد باستان‌شناسی پیش‌ازتاریخ، دانشگاه مازندران (منتشرنشده).
2. - جایز، مژگان، (1391). «مطالعۀ فناوری و گونه‌شناسی دست‌افزارهای سنگی غار ‌کمیشان و مقایسۀ آن با منطقۀ زاگرس». رسالۀ دکتری باستان‌شناسی پیش‌ازتاریخ، دانشگاه تربیت‌مدرس (منتشرنشده).
3. - جایز، مژگان؛ و وحدتی‌نسب، حامد، (1399). «گاه‌نگاری نسبی براساس تشخیص فن‌آوری تولید دست‌ساخته‌های سنگی: مطالعه موردی تکنیک تولید تیغه‌ها و ریزتیغه‌ها در مجموعۀ دست‌ساخته‌های سنگی غار کمیشان مازندران». مطالعات باستان‌شناسی، دورۀ 12 (1): 80-59.
4. - روستایی، کوروش، (1393). «فرآیند نوسنگی‌گرایی در شمال شرق فلات ایران». رسالۀ دکتری باستان‌شناسی پیش‌ازتاریخ، دانشگاه تربیت‌مدرس (منتشرنشده).
5. - حریریان، حمید؛ مترجم، عباس؛ ساعدموچشی، امیر؛ کریمی، زاهد و خسروی، سلمان، (1400). «مطالعۀ اولیۀ دست-افزارهای سنگی محوطه‌های دورۀ مس‌وسنگ در غرب کردستان»، پژوهش‌های باستان‌شناسی ایران، دورۀ 7 (3): 27-7.
6. - عباس‌نژادسرستی، رحمت، (1399). «گزارش توصیفی تحلیلی گمانه‌زنی لایه‌نگاری توق‌تپه. نکا. مازندران». ساری: مرکز اسناد ادارۀ کل میراث‌فرهنگی. صنایع‌دستی و گردشگری استان مازندران (منتشرنشده).
7. - عباس‌نژادسرستی، رحمت؛ و نعمتی‌لوجندی، حسینریال (1400). «گزارش توصیفی تحلیلی گمانه‌زنی لایه‌نگاری تپه‌ولیکی، نکا، مازندران». ساری: مرکز اسناد ادارۀ کل میراث‌فرهنگی، صنایع‌دستی و گردشگری استان مازندران (منتشرنشده).
8. - عزیزی‌خرانقی، حسین؛ و آبه، ماساشی، (1396). «بررسی مجموعه ابزارهای سنگی رحمت‌آباد در محلۀ نوسنگی با سفال اولیه (مرحلۀ شکل‌گیری موشکی)». پاسارگاد، فارس. مجموعه مقاله‌های حفاظت و مرمت، باستان‌شناسی، معماری، زمین‌شناسی، مردم‌شناسی و گردشگری، پایگاه میراث‌جهانی پاسارگاد.
9. - فاضلی‌نشلی، حسن، (1396). «گزارش کاوش تعیین عرصه و حریم محوطۀ باز کمیشانی». ساری: مرکز اسناد ادارۀ کل میراث‌فرهنگی، صنایع‌دستی و گردشگری مازندران (منتشرنشده).
10. - لوئیز اینیزان، ماری؛ و همکاران (1388). فن‌آوری و واژه‌شناسی دست‌افزارسنگی. ترجمۀ الهام قصیدیان، تهران: سمیرا.
11. - ماهفروزی، علی، (1386). «گزارش گمانه‌زنی و تعیین حریم طوق‌تپه نکا». ساری: مرکز اسناد ادارۀ کل میراث‌فرهنگی، صنایع‌دستی و گردشگری مازندران (منتشر‌نشده).
12. - وحدتی‌نسب، حامد (1388). «گزارش فصل اول کاوش در غار کمیشان»، تهران: مرکز اسناد میراث‌فرهنگی، صنایع‌دستی و گردشگری کشور (منتشرنشده).
13. - وحدتی‌نسب، حامد؛ و جایز، مژگان، (1390). «فناوری و گونه‌شناسی مجموعۀ دست‌افزارهای سنگی غار کمیشان، مازندران (ملاحظاتی بر صنعت تریالتی)». مجلۀ باستان‌شناسی و تاریخ، 50: 78-56.
15. - Abbasnejad Seresti, R., (2019). “Descriptive Analytical Report on the Stratigraphic Excavation at Touq Tappeh, Neka, Mazandaran”. Archives of Iranian Center for Archaeological Research (Unpublished Report).
16. - Abbasnejad Seresti, R. & Nemati Loujandi, H., (2022). “Descriptive Analytical Report on the Stratigraphic Excavation at Tappeh Valiki, Neka, Mazandaran”. Archives of Iranian Center for Archaeological Research (Unpublished report).
17. - Abe, M. & Azizi Kharanaghi, M. H., (2014). “A Study on the Early Pottery Neolithic Chipped Stone Assemblages from Rahamatabad”. in: Azizi Kharanaghi, M. H., Khanipour, M. and Naseri, R. (eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference of Young Archaeologists, Tehran: University of Tehran Press: 27-40
18. - Adams, B. & Blades, B. S., (2009). Lithic Material and Paleolithic Societies. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
19. -Andrefsky, W. J., (1998). Lithics: Macroascopic Approaches to Analysis, Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
20. - Barker, G., (2006). The Agricultural Revolution in Prehistory. Why Did Foragers Become Farmers? Oxford, Oxford University Press.
21. - Bar-Yosef, O. & Belfer-Cohen, A., (1992). “From Foraging to Farming in the Mediterranean Levant”. in: A. B. Gebauer and T. D. Price (eds.), Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory: 21-48. (Monograph in World Archaeology 4). Madison, Prehistory Press.
22. - Bar-Yosef, O. & Meadow, R. H., (1995). “The origins of agriculture in the Near East”. In: Price, T. D., and Gebauer, A. B. (eds.), Last Hunters-First Farmers: New Perspectives on the Prehistoric Transition to Agriculture, School of American Research Press, Santa Fe: 39–94.
23. - Blades, B. S., (2002). Aurignacian Lithic Economy Ecological perspectives from Southwestern France. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London, Moscow.
24. -Bleed, P., (1986). “The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintainability or Reliability”. American Antiquity 51 (4): 737-747.
25. - Coon, C. S., (1952). “Excavations in Hotu cave, Iran, 1951, a preliminary report”. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 96 (3): 231-249.
26. - Debenath, A. & Dibble, H. L., (1994). PALEOLITHIC TYPOLOGY. Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.
27. - Dupree, L., (1952). “The Pleistocene Artifacts of Hotu Cave, Iran”. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 96 (3): 250-257.
28. - Ericson, J. E., (1984). “Toward the analysis of lithic production systems”. In: Prehistoric quarries and lithic production, Ericson, J. E and Purdy, B, A., (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 1-9.
29. - Fazeli Nashli, H., (2017). “Excavation Report on Determining the Area and Privacy of the Open Site of Komishani”. Sari: the Document Center of the General Directorate of Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism of Mazandaran.
30. - Haririan, H.; Motarjem, A.; Saedmochshi, A.; Karimi, Z. & Khosravi, S., (2021). “A Preliminary Analysis of Stone Tools from the Chalcolithic Sites of Western Kurdistan”.Pazhohesh-ha-ye Bastanshenasi Iran, 7 (3): 7‒27.
31. -Heydari Gouran, S., (2004). “Stone raw material sources in Iran: some case studies”. T. Stollner, R. Slotta, und A. Vatandoust (eds.), Persian Antiques Splendor, Mining Crafts and Archaeology in Ancient Iran, 1: 124-129, Deutsches Bergbau-Museum Bochum, Bochum.
32. -Hole, F., (1984). “A Reassessment of the Neolithic Revolution”. Paleorient, 10 (2): 49-60.
33. - Inizan, M. L.; Reduron- Ballinger, M.; Roche, H. & Tixier, J., (1995). Technologie de la pierre taillée. Publié avec le concours du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique de l’université de Paris X Nanterre.
34. - Inizan, M.-L.; Tixier, J.; & Roche, H., (2008). Technology of Knapped Stone. trans. by Elham Qasidian, Tehran: Samira.
35. - Jayez, M., (2012). “A Study of the Technology and Typology of Stone Tools from Komishan Cave and Its Comparison to the Zagros Region”. Unpublished PhD dissertation in Prehistoric Archaeology, Tarbiat Modares University.
36. - Jayez, M. & Vahdati Nasab, H., (2019). “Relative Chronology based on the Diagnosis of the Technology of Stone Artifacts Production: A Case Study of the Technology of Manufacturing Blades and Bladelets in the Lithic Collection from Komishan Cave, Mazandaran”. Journal of Archaeological Studies, 12 (1): 59‒80.
37. - Jochim, M., (1983). “Optimization Models in Context”. In: J. A. Moore and A. S. Keene, eds. Archaeological Hammers and Theories, New York: Academic Press: 157-172.
38. - Mahfroozi, A., (2002). Gohar Tappeh. Monument Museum.
39. - Roustaei, K., (2014). “Neolithic Process in the North-eastern Plateau of Iran”.Doctoral Dissertation in Prehistoric Archaeology, University Tarbiat Modares.
40. Shott, M., (1986). “Technological Organization and Settlement Mobility: An Ethnographic Examination”. Journal of Anthropological Research 42 (1): 15-51.
41. - Tavakoli Zaniani, A., (2023). “A Study of the Neolithic Technology and Subsistence in the Eastern Plains of Mazandaran in Light of Study of Stone Tools from the 2020 Excavation in Touq Tappeh, Neka, Mazandaran”. M.A. Thesis in Prehistoric Archaeology, University of Mazandaran (Unpublished report).
42. - Vahdati Nasab, H., (2009). “Report of the first chapter of the excavation of Ghar Kamishan”. Tehran: Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism Documentation Center of the country (Unpublished report).
43. -Vahdati Nasab, H. & Jayez, M., (2011). “Technology and Typology of the Lithic Artifacts from Komishan Cave, Mazandaran (Observations on the Industry of Trialeti)”.Journal of Archeology and History 2 (50): 56‒78.

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.