Reconstruction Post-Palaeolithic Stone Tools Production Systems; Based on a Case Study from Panj-Berar Site, Southeast of Caspian Sea

Authors

1 Ph.D. in Archeology, Islamic Azad University, Research Sciences Branch, Tehran, Iran

2 Professor, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Archeology, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran.

Abstract

In the earliest times stone tools were produced for the vital needs of hunting or gathering food resources for which the awareness of humans on the characteristics of different kinds and mineral capacities of stones raw materials played an important role in the production processes. Stone tools were produced, traded and used according to the different environmental Potential to different tradition from the lower Palaeolithic to the later times even human access to metal technology in the later pre-historic period, lithic technology did not lose its importance and efficiency. With the advent of urbanization and the development of complex societies, the structure of stone tools production systems has become more complex. In some areas, due to the local or regional availability of low-cost raw materials, the lithic technology has continued to expand widely even to the first millennium BC. At this time, the high demand in complex societies for the use of stone tools has led to the development of specialized lithic production systems. In the area of this study, a post-Palaeolithic stone tool production system in the south-east of the Caspian Sea has been investigated. This system deals with the massive settlement urbanization of Gohar Tepe to produce and supply lithic products at the regional level. In this study, 5 sites, namely Khanehsar 3, Rostamkola 1, Panj Berar, Bez khal, Kefal Lingeh, present surface dispersions of lithic material. The common characteristic of all lithic production bases is existence of large blades cores and long blades. Due to a high density of lithic scattered on an extensive area of about 10 ha, the Panj Berar area was selected for sampling of lithic artifacts. Flakes with centripetal negative removal, hereinafter referred to as Levallois-like flakes, by-products are a production process that can be misleading. This research examines how to create these flakes.
Keywords: Post-Paleolithic, Lithic Production System, Chaîne Opératoire, Gohar Tepe, Panj-Berar
Introduction
The use of stone to create a tool for a specific purpose is not limited to the Paleolithic period. Its abundance, raw material quality, easy accessibility and low cost make it an efficient tool that has survived the oldest human technology even to the historic periods. In some cultural areas where high quality raw material resources are rich, used the stone tools from paleolithic to the post-paleolithic. But in what process, in what Chaîne Opératoire, and what remains are they left outside of archaeological settlements, is the question that this research seeks to answer.
Procuration of raw material, reduction and initial cortex removal, preparation of a pebble or block in the form of core, are the preliminary stages of the Chaîne Opératoire. This generally occurs near sources of raw material, and what remains is a surface filled with lithics that contain signs of human activity. The problem that arises in dealing with such sites is how to distinguish between knapping methods in the Paleolithic and Post-Paleolithic periods. Especially if several centripetal negative removals were used to prepare the surface of a rock, there would simply be similar flakes to samples from the Paleolithic period (Levallois-like flakes). Such debitages, if obtained outside a settlement area and away from other Characteristic elements of any pre-historical period, will have a serious problem with their assignment to specific periods. This problem is particularly acute in areas where the volume of Paleolithic archaeological research is limited and there is no specific criteria for the technology and typology of Paleolithic and post-Paleolithic period tools. This study investigates this challenge in southeast Caspian Sea, which is one of the unknown cultural areas during the Paleolithic/post-‌Paleolithic periods and almost no specific criteria have been provided for the attribution of the stone artifacts found from this region. The purpose of this study was to recognize lithic production system around Gohar Tepe as one of the largest urban centers in the Bronze/Iron age, and identify and study the technology and typology of post-Paleolithic stone tools that scattering in southeast of the Caspian Sea. This recognition can explain the technological and typological differences and similarities between Paleolithic and Post-Paleolithic and create criteria for Post-Paleolithic industries in the southern Caspian Sea. To achieve research goals, area within 7 km radius for archaeological survey in the southern highlands of Gohar Tepe was selected.
 
Archaeological Survey
According to the Iranian Archaeological Atlas, 13 Iron Age sites are located within the selected area that has been revisited in this survey. In this study, 5 sites, namely Khanehsar 3, Rostamkola1, Panj-Berar, Bezkhal, Kefal Lingeh, present surface dispersions of lithic material. The common characteristic of all lithic production bases is existence of large blades cores and long blades. Due to a high density of lithic scattered on an extensive area of about 10 ha, the Panj-Berar area was selected for sampling of lithic artifacts. Sampling procedure is limited to unit size of one meter sq. and through which 796 pieces of lithic were collected of which 23 pieces (2.88%) represent different types of cores, 341 pieces (42.83%) belong to all types of debitage, 247 pieces (31.03%) pertain to all types of tools and 185 pieces (23.24%) belong to the different types of debris respectively. In more than 90% of the cases, Behshahr chert raw materials were used in production cycles. Most cores are single platform and unidirectional blade core. 588 pieces of debitage (raw and tools) are considered to have been categorized into two main groups including flake 41/32% (243 pieces) and blade 58/67% (345 pieces) 183 pieces of total tools consist of blade and 64 pieces of flake are classified as types of retouched, notched, denticulated, baked, truncated, utilized and scraper. The most frequent type of tool in the Panj-Berar belonged to retouched blades (57.08%). Based on techno-typological analysis, a complete Chaîne Opératoire of production can be seen in Panj-Berar Base. The existence of cores, completely cortical flake, unutilized and unretouched flake, debris and tools with together show that process of producing the tools, from the early stages of remove cortical flake to making the primary blank and their retouching were processed in the Panj-Berar base. Reconstruction of Chaîne Opératoire of Panj-Berar Base lithic production turns out extensive activity, standardized and supervised with the specific purpose for blade production.
 
Conclusion
Base on archaeological survey and techno-typological analysis of stone tools, Panj-Bberar probably is Base can be considered as part of a wider system of lithic production in the southeast of Caspian Sea. A relatively wide distribution of lithic manufacturing bases and the large volume of production activities in the area indicate the existence of a lithic production system that should be worked under the supervision of a larger society. Gohar Tepe as the largest urban settlement in the region can be a place to produce and utilize the stone tools supplied at these bases. According to the Ericsson classification, the system of lithic production in Panjabar and adjacent areas can be classified as irregular production systems with regional accessibility to raw material. Reconstruction of the Chaîne Opératoire at the Panjberar base, has been determined using centripetal debitage for initian cortex removal of large block/pebble. This method unconsciously results in the production of Levallois-like flakes. The presence of Levallois-like flakes alongside the large blades cores, Long blades, red and gray polished and burnished pottery belong to bronze/iron age can help us measure these tools in the post-Palaeolithic.

Keywords


- اشمیت، اریخ، 1391، کاوش‌های تپه حصار دامغان، با فصلی دربارۀ کاخ ساسانی تپه حصار. نوشتۀ فیسکه کیمبل، ترجمۀ کورش روستایی، سمنان: ادارۀ کل میراث‌فرهنگی، صنایع‌دستی و گردشگری استان سمنان.
- اورلت، برونو، 1392، عصر آهن اولیه در پشتکوه لرستان، ترجمۀ کمال‌الدین نیکنامی و امیرساعد موچشی، تهران: سمت.
- جایز، مژگان، 1392، «تغییر خط سیر تولید ریزتیغه‌ها از فراپارینه‌سنگی به نوسنگی در دشت ایذه، شمال‌شرق خوزستان». مجلۀ مطالعات باستان‌شناسی، دورۀ 5، شمارۀ 2، صص: 39-57.
- حاکمی، علی، 1385، گزارش هشت فصل بررسی و کاوش در شهداد (دشت لوت) 1354-1347 شمسی. به‌کوشش: محمود موسوی، تهران: پژوهشگاه میراث‌فرهنگی، صنایع‌دستی و گردشگری، پژوهشکدۀ باستان‌شناسی.
- رحتمی، سید مرتضی؛ و ماهفروزی، علی، 1386، «بررسی محوطۀ باز اسپه مله، رستم کلا». دوفصلنامۀ تخصصی پژوهش‌های باستان‌شناسی و علوم میان‌رشته‌ای، نشریۀ مشترک جهاد دانشگاهی، دانشگاه تهران و موزه ملی ایران، سال 4، شمارۀ 5، صص: 107-103.
- رحیمی، الهه، 1385، «بررسی رسوب‌شناسی و محیط‌های رسوبی کواترنری شرق استان مازندران در نکا تا نوکنده». پایان‌نامه کارشناسی‌ارشد زمین‌شناسی. دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، همدان، (منتشر نشده).
- رفیع‌فر، جلال‌الدین، 1387، «صنایع سنگ تراشیده در کنار صندل جنوبی: جیرفت گزارش مقدماتی». در: مجموعه مقالات نخستین همایش بین‌المللی: تمدن حوزۀ هلیل: جیرفت (1383)، تهران: سازمان میراث‌فرهنگی صنایع‌دستی و گردشگری استان کرمان، صص: 126-115.
- عباسی، قربانعلی، 1390، گزارش پایانی کاوش‌های باستان‌شناختی نرگس‌تپۀ دشت گرگان. تهران: گنجینۀ نقش جهان.
- قصیدیان، الهام، 1397، «در جستجوی کهن‌ترین ساکنان مازندران». آرشیو پژوهشکدۀ باستان‌شناسی، (منتشر نشده).
- ماهفروزی، علی، 1386، «باستان‌شناسی شرق مازندران با تکیه‌بر کاوش‌های گوهرتپه». گزارش‌های باستان‌شناسی (7)، جلد دوم، مجموعه مقالات نهمین گردهمایی سالانۀ باستان‌شناسی ایران، تهران: پژوهشگاه سازمان میراث‌فرهنگی، صنایع‌دستی و گردشگری، پژوهشکدۀ باستان‌شناسی، صص: 367-347.
- مرادیان، معصومه، 1397، «مطالعه و تحلیل فناوری و گونه‌شناسی دست‌ساخته‌های سنگی به‌دست آمده از بررسی محوطه‌های کمیشانی». پایان‌نامۀ کارشناسی‌ارشد باستان‌شناسی، به‌راهنمایی: کمال‌الدین نیکنامی، گروه باستان‌شناسی دانشکدۀ ادبیات و علوم انسانی دانشگاه تهران، (منتشر نشده).
- مرادی، بابک؛ و بختیاری، فاطمه، 1391، «شواهدی جدید از وجود سرپیکان‌های سنگی دورویه در لرستان طی عصر مفرغ». در: گزارش‌های باستان‌شناسی (8)، مجموعه مقالات همایش بین‌المللی باستان‌شناسی ایران: حوزۀ غرب، کرمانشاه 1385، تهران: پژوهشگاه میراث‌فرهنگی، صنایع‌دستی و گردشگری، پژوهشکدۀ باستان‌شناسی، صص:  110-107.
- موسوی‌کوهپر، سید مهدی، 1386، «گزارش توصیفی بررسی‌های باستان‌شناختی به‌منظور تهیۀ نقشۀ اطلس باستان‌شناسی کشور». آرشیو پژوهشکدۀ باستان‌شناسی، (منتشر نشده).
- مهندسین مشاور جاماب، 1380، «مطالعۀ طرح جامع آب کشور، حوضۀ ساحلی دریای مازندران». (منتشر نشده).
- نادری، رحمت، 1384، «صنایع‌سنگی اواخر دورۀ پارینه‌سنگی، تنگه شورش، مازندران». چکیده مقالات همایش بین‌المللی باستان‌شناسی ایران: حوزۀ شمال و شمال‌شرق، تهران: پژوهشگاه میراث‌فرهنگی و گردشگری، صص: 287-288.
- نگهبان، عزت‌الله، 1372، حفاری هفت تپه دشت خوزستان. تهران: سازمان میراث‌فرهنگی کشور.
 
- Andrefsky, W., (Ed.), 2008, Lithic technology: measures of production, use, and curation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Andrefsky, W., 2009, “The analysis of stone tool procurement, production, and maintenance”. Journal of Archaeological Research, No. 17(1), Pp: 65-103.
- Ericson, J. E., 1984, “Toward the analysis of lithic production systems”. In: Prehistoric quarries and lithic production (Pp. 1-9). Ericson, J. E and Purdy, B, A., (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Ghasidian, E., 2018, “In search of first settlers of Southern Caspian Corridor: the first season of Palaeolithic survey: Neka, Behshahr and Galougah regions”. Report prepared for Iranian Centre for Archaeological Research (Unpublished, in Persian).
- Hakemi, A., 2006, “Archaeological Report of Eight Seasons of Survey and Excavation at Shahdad (Lut Plain) 1968-1975”. Moosavi, M., (ed.), Archaeological Report Monograph, 13, Tehran: Cultural Heritage, Handicraft and Tourism Organization. (in persian).
- Heydari, 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, Pp: 124-129, Deutsches Bergbau-Museum Bochum, Bochum.
- Jafari, M., J., 2013, “Reoprt of the third seasons of archaeological excavation at Lama Cemetery. Iran”. Iranian Archaeology, No. 4, Pp: 58-77.
- Jamab Consulting Engineers, 2001, Study of the National Water Master Plan, Coastal Basin of Mazandaran province., (Unpublished, in persian).
- Jayez, M., 2014, “Shift in the Bladelet Production Process from Epipalaeolithic to Neolithic in the Izeh Plain of Kuzistan, Iran”. Journal of Archaeological Studies, No. 5(2), Pp: 39-57. (in Persian).
- Jayez, M. & Vahdati Nasab, H., 2016, “A separation: Caspian Mesolithic vs Trialetian lithic industry. A research on the excavated site of Komishan, southeast of the Caspian Sea, Iran”. Paléorient, No. 42 (1), Pp: 75-94.
- Khabbaz-Nia, A. R.; Sadeghi, A.; Saidi, A.; Khannazer, N. H.; Vakili, F.; Bahremand, M.; Masoomi, R. & GHomashi. A., 2003, Geological map. sari Sheet. Ministry of Industries and Mines. Geological Survey of Iran.
- Mahfroozi, A., 2007, “Eastern Mazandaran Archaeology, based on excavation of Gohar-Tepe”. Archaeological Reports (7), On The Occasion of The 9th Annual Symposium On Iranian Archaeology. (2nd Volume), Pp: 347-367, Tehran: RCCHTO-ICAR (in Persian).
- Moradi, B. & Bakhtiari, F., 2012, “Bifacial points new evidences from Loristan Bronze age”. Archaeological Reports (8), Proceedings of The International symposium on Iranian Archaeology: Western Region. Cultural Heritage and Tourism Research Institute (in Persian).
- Moradian, M., 2019, “Techno-typological analysis of chipped stone materials from survey of Komishani sites”. MA Thesis in Archaeology. Department of Archaeology, Tehran University, unpublished. (in persian).
- Mousavi Kouhpar, S. M., 2007, “Descriptive Report of Archaeological Surveys for the Mapping of the Iranian Archaeological Atlas”. Report prepared for Iranian Centre Archaeological Research, (Unpublished, in Persian).
- Naderi, R., 2005, “Stone Tools Industry of Late Paleolithic Period. Shoresh Valley,  Mazandaran”. International Symposium Archaeology: North & Northeastern Region, Cultural Heritage and Tourism Research Institute, Pp: 287-288. (Abstracts book, in Persian).
- Negahban, E., 1993, Excavation at Haft Tepe, Khuzestan plain. Tehran: Cultural Heritage Organization (in Prsian).
- Overlate, B., 2003, The Early Iron Age in the Posht-i Koh, Luristan. Translated by: Kamal Aldin Niknami  & Amir Saed Mochshi. Tehran: SAMT. (in Persian).
- Rafiefar, J., 2008, “Chipped stone industries in Konar Sandal south, Jiroft. preliminary report”. In: First International Conference of Archaeological Research in Jiroft: 2004, The Halil Basin Civilization, Y. Madjidzadeh (ed.), Tehran: Research Center for ICHTO, Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism Organization of Kerman Province, (In Persian).
- Rahimi, E., 2007, “Quaternary sedimentology and depositional environments of eastern Mazandarn Province from Neka to Nokande”. Msc. Thesis in Geology (sedimentology and sedimentary Petrology), Department of Geoloy Bu Ali Sina University,. (Unpublished in Persian).
- Rahmati, S. M. & Mahfroozi, A., 2007, “Espeh-Male open site survey. Rostamkola”. Journal of Archaeological Research and Interdisciplinary Studies, No. 3 (5), Pp: 103-107 (in Persian). 
- Rosen, S. A., 1997, Lithics after the Stone Age: a handbook of stone tools from the Levant. London: Rowman Altamira.
- Schmidt, F., E., 2012, Excavation at Tepe Hissar Damghan. With an additional chapter on the Sasanian Building at tepe Hissar, translated by Kourosh Roustaei. Semnan: Cultural heritage, Handicraft and Tourism Organization of Semnan Province (in Persian)
- Vahdati Nasab, H. V.; Roustaei, K.; Ghamari Fatideh, M.; Shojaeefar, F. & Hashemi Sarvandi, M., 2017, “The first evidence for Late Pleistocene hominin populations on the southern Caspian Sea coast”. Antiquity, No. 91 (355) e1, Project Gallery.