report on the 1978 sondage at eshkaft-e gavi

British Institute of Persian Studies

Report on the 1978 Sondage at Eshkaft-e GaviAuthor(s): Michael RosenbergSource: Iran, Vol. 23 (1985), pp. 51-62Published by: British Institute of Persian StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4299753 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 14:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

British Institute of Persian Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Iran.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.31 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:33:34 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bips

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4299753?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


REPORT ON THE 1978 SONDAGE AT ESHKAFT-E GAVI

By Michael Rosenberg University of Pennsylvania

The Mary Dasht, the plain which constitutes the lower part of the Kur River Valley, is perhaps best known as the locale for the historic site of Persepolis and the earlier prehistoric site of Malyan. However, as noted elsewhere (Rosenberg, 1980), it was occupied at least as early as the Middle Paleolithic and many of the caves which occur in the mountains surrounding the Mary Dasht contain the remains of these Middle Paleolithic occupations as well as those of later Upper and Epi-Paleolithic occupations.

Eshkaft-e Gavi is a relatively large, roughly figure-eight shaped, cave on the northern slope of Kuh-i Sabz, a ridge which rises from the floor of the Mary Dasht near the juncture of the Kur and Sivand Rivers. The cave itself is located approximately 5 km. west of the modern town of Mary Dasht and about 3 km. from the eastern tip of Kuh-i Sabz. It is situated approximately 20 m. above plain level and faces north-east, overlooking the Kur River which flows by the site at a distance of approximately 750 m. (Fig. 1).

The site was first brought to the author's attention by William Sumner, who had visited it in 1969

during the course of his survey of the Kur River Basin (Sumner, 1972). On visiting the cave in 1978, however, the author was disappointed to find that the site had been partially destroyed by mechanical excavation of the talus slope and by a partial collapse of the roof due to blasting. Both had been carried out in the course of a dispute concerning the use of the cave as an animal pen. The author's

disappointment was particularly acute because Sumner had indicated that the talus slope had, to the best of his recollection, contained "blades" and the author, who was conducting a survey of Paleolithic sites at that time,* had, to that point, been unable to locate a major Upper Paleolithic site in the Mary Dasht. Sifting through some soil which had come from what had once been the talus slope yielded a few

pieces of chipped stone which appeared to have Upper Paleolithic affinities. The fact that the only practical way in which information about this Upper Paleolithic site could be gotten was by excavation; the fact that the dispute which had precipitated the damage to the cave was still unresolved and that, therefore, the site was in imminent danger of further damage; and the fact that the author needed a local stratified sequence into which to tie the survey data, prompted me to submit a request to the archaeological service for permission to conduct a two week sondage at the site. The request was

granted and work was begun on July 28th 1978. As noted above, the cave is roughly figure-eight shaped with the rear chamber the smaller of the

two. The afore-mentioned blasting was apparently conducted at two points. One set of charges, evidently placed at the opening of the cave, resulted in a substantial collapse of what had been the roof over the entrance of the cave. This blast resulted in a pile of stone rubble across the entrance of the cave several metres high at its highest point. A second charge was placed inside the cave at the point were the two chambers meet. It appears to have been placed in or near what had been a small hole in the roof of the cave, with the resulting blast leaving a second pile of stone rubble in the middle of the cave and a

substantially larger opening in the roof. Together, the mounds of stone rubble resulting from these two roof falls cover most of the front chamber (Fig. 2).

In order to get the widest range of data within the restricted format of a test excavation it was decided to probe the deposits of both the front and rear chambers. This, however, required each of the individual exposures to be smaller than would have been the case had each been the only excavation conducted. The underlying rationale for this strategy was the assumption that the front chamber with * Both the survey and the Eshkaft-e Gavi excavation were carried out under the auspices of the Malyan Project as part of the author's dissertation research. The author is indebted to Dr. William M. Sumner and Dr. Robert H. Dyson Jr., directors of the Malyan Project, for their support and guidance in that research.

51



52 JOURNAL OF PERSIAN STUDIES

~~~~~~~... ........~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ;;iiiitillli ~ ~ ill!:j,/ij~ ~i~j~;....................::::: iiiiiiiiliiiiiiii..............iii .... .... .... ... . .. .... ...

................. ... ::::. .................IR A

.... .... ... .... .... .... .... .... ... i~i~iii.............. '**:::::::::::: ...................~ B K U iiI~iiiiiI~iiiiiii~~~ijiii~i ~ ~ ~ i?..............................~ BASI . ........... ............. iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiii~?i~~iiiiiiiiiiiiii.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iiiiiiii

~iiiiiiiiillliiliII~ i~iiiiiii~;i~i~..l~...................ii~~~ iiiki w ..............iliiiii:;ill;il~~,?i; ~ tMA LYA ~Cih ;;;~~iiiii.................iz~ ........................... IRANj~ ... . ..... .... .... ..... ..... ....

~ijiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiFiiiiiiiiiiiiii.............iiii ............... ...................... :::..................................... LOWE .............. ............. .............................................. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .......................................... ...........i

i~;~~i i~i~..............~

...............~~~~~~~~~~~~ .............~.i.~. i~~~~i~

.... ... ... ... ... ... ... K M . ~i~~: ..........................................-- .... ....

........ ..... ::::::::: ti~.iiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiii .............::::::

Fig. 1. Map of the Marv Dasht showing sites mentioned in the text.

its relatively good light and ventilation was the scene of most activities and, consequently, the place where hearths were situated. Thus, it was assumed that the front chamber deposits were more likely to

yield sufficient charcoal for dating than the rear chamber deposits. By the same logic, it was assumed that they would yield a larger sample of artifacts than the rear chamber deposits. The rear chamber

deposits, on the other hand, were expected to contain higher concentrations of faunal material on the

assumption that the rear chamber with its poor light and ventilation was less likely the site of activities than the repository for the inhabitants' refuse. In addition, part of the bulldozed talus slope soil was screened in order to get a sample of the artifacts which presumably lay on its surface at one time.

The test pit sunk into the deposits of the front chamber, designated operation B, measured 2 sq.m. It was placed as far to the front and centre of the cave as the rubble permitted in the belief that such a location would increase the likelihood of encountering hearths. In the two weeks of excavation this

sondage was taken to a depth of 2 m., at which point work was halted because the time allotted to this

project under the permit had run out and because, given the dimensions of the sondage and its position relative to the mounds of rubble, continued work without suitable equipment was becoming increasingly dangerous.

The test pit sunk into the rear chamber deposits, designated operation A, covered an area of 3 sq.m. and was taken to a maximum depth of 1.50 m. before work was halted. Unlike operation B, no



REPORT ON THE 1978 SONDAGE AT ESHKAFT-E GAVI 53

- -. , ? ? :--,:.-:.-:...?. *--..,_-.,-*.--'-' : .?7 7 ?...'.'.. : .........4

..?--?...?._...'?.?'.' -....... ? I i I .. . I I

. . - ...7 7. ?.?..,..-....*--..-..*.'-.*..*.-.'..,-*...,...-............,.-.

* . ..:?:-.*-?-?-.*-.-, ..

_

?....?-, ..*.............. . ** * ,* - ** .* . . . : . '. .. . - . .. - ..

. . . - . . "_ . .: . . . . .. . ..'.:...

- -. ...*. -,:. .,.* .'.'. ..'. -,-.. ...: .-.*. ? ?.. .: ?. .... .,.. .....

...* ?.'.. .... ..:N

.. *.-'..*.,..*-,:.--,....-.*..-.?.? , ** - - - ** "

.... .'.. ... ::..:..'..' .. ::. ? . e-?:* .-.;..?. . .... ..

. *-.,-..,. .. - . . - - ..

. ? ._ . ....?::: .--?..

. ...-*..-*...'....-. ...

...-.'. ..-.'. . ... .. : :?::.N , _ _

- . ? - .1

.. -?- -..?-... .......* ...*?'.. .*.*..*. ,-'.-... '..*.. . ..*- . .. . .*.. .-.. .-?..... .:-..... ..-*.,.. .,.....: ..*.*... .,.? *P A

.? ?, .. .?.

.* .* ., -* I

-.-. :. -? . * . -

. ... .: .. .* *.

.. '?: '. *..*. .. .- .'..,.. .. ... .? .

.? .* .* .*? .* -.' . ..'.. - *. ,.*

.. .. -? .. .- ... /

.:.? -,.. .? ..... ...?- ...?.,. ..* .*.*? .:* ** ,** **" ,.. .? . .., ...,...,- .* ??*

.:: -_ - - ... - - .. - " *IllllillllllII III . - ...'

111, 11 111 1 :1I,:i .. .I I ; .III II IIII *

I II I -

'? I ,' II 'I II -

II * * ,

.': ,

' 'I , I ; I I I I* -

.?:. *, *. .. -. ': .

?.

.... - - - I ' II I - i II I ' 1 iI I; ; ;I jI I'I I II ' I I I '

..I - ....-?.??.-*- . . . .

. .. .

.

.

*

.. - ?

*

. I ,.

* *

*

*.,- .*. .

' '

.. .... - ? .. .

.. ?.. . .. .. .-

. -. .

..

. ... -

.. .

.. . .* .

. *. -

-.

*

.' .

.. *

.. '

,. *

-. -

* .-

. .." .. . .. .

.....-:-? ??::?..? ?.. ::. - , . ? ....... --''-* - - . - . *. * . *' - ;. . . .. . .

?* . - ' - * *, . ,

:.

, *. :: , - -

*. . .. .. .-

? *.- *. . ?? .

?. .. . .. . ..

I ,- . .?

. .- .- . ..--.'-*.-

.- '- . ,: . ..

' .*

* ..'.-'..*,-....*... ..- , - -- ?...*..*.. -....? ?.- ? ?'

..- '- ..: .W. - .- ..

. .. . .- - - .* . *

., . . :..... . ._ . ? ` * * ` - - - ....... . . - , .- . .. . . .'-. ...'-* ..'.'.

I '...*--.*-' .-.*.- *-'-.' ..*.'' ...--.

' * ,. ' ' ,

*. . - - . * - - .. .- - 1 . Iil .iii --i-l - ... .......".''... - - - .. ...I ...., - ?? ..- . .. . . .?...

- -- ... ? .. I .- I ..'.

. ..* I , . ** ' * *-' **..'.?:*. ..* *'.?. .... ..... ..., 4 ... . _ .. ...

' '. , - ....... . - -- I llj/l l ,.,. - - .- - .*. *

........, . ......-

. I II I I I ?..'?...,".?....'?..'.?.....,..''....'.?*.-.'......-...-....?.?-:?.*.*..*..?......-.-...-.......--...,.......?...........?.-*..?*..*.-*..,-.,-.-,...*..*..*.-'.*.

. -- -. - .. .. . -. .. : -.

.- . .. ..

. .- :. . .. .. . --..._.... . ..... _?.. _ *,. . . . ..

- .. ..:??.,...?.? *.'. .- .-.

' - ?.

* .. - .*.

..

' -.

' - -.

, *.

. ?. . .. : .,

- . - . ?. .., . .. .. . X

? .

........",.....? ?

.. . '. .

... .... .. ? ... ... . .. . . . . . . . . "

'i -. ''

* . - . . , .. ,.. . ?.?. ...? ., 4 %. ...*. :.- . . . .. . .. .. ... .. .. ... -.... ...

.*-**- -.,... ,.. ... ,m e e r . . . .. .. . . .. ... .?*. .: : . . .. . .. . . .. . .....- . : . . . ... ..

* . . . . " * ... .. .. - .....4 . I j I I ' : ' ' I ' r I i I I

' II ' I ' I ' ' ' I ' ' I

' ; I

.. ..,:...' .- - .? -*

.-- ?**.*..- . .w. - %' '- ' ' - :i:*-?.??.'.

' .. --??.. .?. .. :...

_:. I ; ' .I ' ; ' I i - ) I . .. . ...:.-' ' ; I ' ., , - I I . ' _I I . .."*. .*.: .. ...41.1..- ....... .' i' I ..-- . .:..... ?..:. ?..?*.,....*-'.*'.....-*-. *--'? ..*.. ,....,.,......,.?..- .*.?. ..... .,... -,_.. '?.*....*- " ... _? ...._ -. . ? -. ? . . ,. . . .. . . ? .*

. . I

,. . ?: -' * -

.?. . . . ., . , * - -

:.:._?_ ,. . .:.*:-:.:-::..:.:..... Ii l.*ll li._ I ....'. - .. - .- ..-.....-.,i~ il~ l~l .--... ....- ...." - ?- " ".. ...---_ ?- .? -.--.---*-, ..:i:.::.** * 0 1 2 , I _ . . . -

? .. *.

.* ..'*.." ...,

-,

... .-*. i ;( II ii iI I: Ii I I I I I i ; I .. .- - .'' .. _'. . '. . .. .. - - *, " " ... .. .. - , , . .-w111111. .. . .. ... .. - . - - . . .. . . . - . .. - .. ..:.., . ,.? . - .. -.-- -?* .. . .. . . . . ? ., ,?. .. . .... ?. . : ... ........... .. 111 1;1 iii iillj III 1; . .. 11 1111 ;! , - .. .4. *: .*. - ? . ? , _ : . *.. ...'-? ? . . * *. . . .... .." - * ., : . ...:. * .. .. ... ? . ? ? - . . . - - I;( III; I 1 1/ .. . .. ..-' . - ?1: I .. :_ , . . ? -' , . , .. . * . * . . .?.., . .. . - *. . ..?.? - *.- . . . . . . . ..... .- . . ? . , . . , ? * ?. . . ... ...-. . .-. I - * I I I i . . . II ; I ; I I ?I : I II ! . - ._ .. ... : .. I IIIII I I I II . . II . . I I I I I .,.,....,.:':... :.:.:.:. ' III . :.:::,:::::..,.-...... .; I Il*j , -II , I I . * * ll i.-.l i II 1 111 _ II I .?ll lilllllll i . .llll , - .. 11.111 111.1. ...11;.. .. I. ~~~IIIj IIIIII I '. ".. I ?. ..?..... ..,. :..: . - ... ..... ?* . ... . . * ." .*. ? - - *. * * . .. ...? . /" . I . . : *?... . I : I ".._'.. -.....-......- I; I .. . . :,. : . ... Ii II II II 1I II ....II

S. , . I * - ':::.. I 1 1 : 1 1 ....... . . . 1 . I . . 1 . I I - 11. '- _ ? .. ..... ....: ?. : . ....::.. .: ::: " 1 :- . .... .... ......

Fig. 2. Plan of the cave illustrating the location of Operations A and B, and rooffalls. Section of cave showing the opening in the roof ofthe cave and the rooffalls.




attempt was made to situate operation A in such a way as to maximize the likelihood of locating particular features. Rather, given the extensive disturbance of the rear chamber deposits evident in the irregular nature of the rear chamber floor, the primary consideration in the location of operation A was the desire to place this particular sondage over the least disturbed part of that chamber's deposits. For that reason, operation A was situated along the west wall of the rear chamber.

Of the two operations, the sondage put down into the front chamber deposits, operation B, provided the clearer sequence of the two as the deposits exposed there were relatively undisturbed. As delineated by operation B, the deposits near the front of the cave consist of two discernible strata. The uppermost, measuring approximately 15 cm. in depth, consists primarily of organic material containing ground stone, ceramic, and metal fragments of apparent post-Pleistocene date. This organic stratum overlies a rocky orange-brown deposit of Pleistocene age, which continues down the remaining 1.85 m. probed by the sondage. While containing several diffuse charcoal lenses, this lower stratum contains no immediately discernible stratigraphic subdivisions and is apparently the product of relatively continuous geological and cultural processes. The positions of these various charcoal lenses and the C14 dates derived from them are illustrated in Fig. 3. In all, there are six dates, all obtained from very small samples and they range between c. 18,000 and 30,000 B.P. Putting the stratigraphic inconsistencies momentarily aside and also putting aside the question of where in this rather wide range the actual date of these lenses lies, it would appear on the basis of these dates that the uppermost 2 m. of the lower stratum spans the climatic episode usually referred to as the Wurm II and the cultural epoch called the Upper Paleolithic. Moreover, assuming a relatively constant rate of deposition, extrapolation of these dates to the base of operation B suggests that at a depth of c. 2 m. this stratum may span the final part of the Middle Paleolithic as well.

Unfortunately, the relatively small area of operation B severely limited the size of the artifactual

sample recovered from any single level. Moreover, in the lowermost 50 cm. the density of chipped stone within the deposits dropped dramatically. The small exposure, coupled with this low artifact density, resulted in the recovery of a particularly small chipped stone sample from precisely those levels which an extrapolation of the C14 dates suggest contain the remains of a transition from the Middle to the

Upper Paleolithic. It is, therefore, difficult to demonstrate such a transition and still more difficult to discuss the nature of such a transition in any detail.

The size of the chipped stone sample recovered from each level of operation B and the frequency of those artifact types having some chronological significance are given in Table 1. While it is apparent that the frequency of individual types at any level is too small to make changes in such frequencies over time meaningful in any chronological sense, some points can nevertheless be made.

To begin with, the majority of the shaped chipped stone artifacts recovered from the uppermost 1.25 m. of operation B have apparent Upper Paleolithic affinities, a fact not at all surprising in view of the C14 dates. Typologically, backed blades, unbacked blades, notched blades, burins, end scrapers, and carinated scrapers predominate. In addition, fragments of what appear to be Baradostian points also occur. Moreover, much of the chipped stone from the uppermost 1.25 m. appears to have been

produced by, or be a by-product of, what is usually referred to as a flake-blade/blade technology. That is, it appears to have been predominantly the product of a technology geared to the production of

parallel-sided flakes produced by unidirectional percussion around the periphery of a core. Such typically Upper Paleolithic artifacts, however, become increasingly less common below c.

1.00 m. and are completely absent at depths greater than 1.25 m. Moreover, while not indicated in the

table, unretouched blades too cease to occur below 1.17 m. In their place flakes less standardized in their configuration and dorsal flake scar pattern, and apparently the product of techniques other than those associated with the production of blades, increase in frequency and dominate the chipped stone artifactual sample recovered from these levels. For example, flakes with multidirectional dorsal flake scar patterns, as might result from an origin on a globular or discoidal core, become more numerous. Moreover, while not common, such typically Middle Paleolithic artifacts as convergent scrapers and side scrapers occur at these levels. Unfortunately, the small samples from these levels make it virtually impossible to say with any certainty whether these assemblages are the products of an early Upper Paleolithic industry or a Middle Paleolithic one and the C 14 dates are consistent with either possibility.




OPERATION B- SECTION (FACING SOUTHWEST)

o surface

> 276400 BP 2 2 +301086

5 P... .-6-

S24,24082180BP E ...ci ..-'''t''•• 8,o P

.. .18,150+1500 B'P4

- . *,.~,i ,~; , .j~.19,230 ~B-P5 -v,'u1340 BP

> 27,300

BP 6

1Y2

SAMPEL 1 P- 2861 2 P- 2862 3 P- 2863 4 P- 2864 5

P-- 2865

L2 6 P- 2866

ESHKAFT-E GAVI

Fig. 3. Operation B section (facing southwest) showing the location of the charcoal concentrations from which the dates mentioned in the text were derived.

That is, as noted by Hole and Flannery (1967, 157), in the Zagros some Middle Paleolithic types, notably side scrapers, persist into the early part of the Upper Paleolithic as minor types. However, in view of the fact that at these lower levels of operation B the Middle Paleolithic types occur without the accompaniment of even such a basic Upper Paleolithic type as blades, it would seem that a Middle Paleolithic attribution for these small assemblages might be warranted. Moreover, the proposed existence of such a Middle Paleolithic component is supported by the recovery from operation A of additional chipped stone artifacts with obvious Middle Paleolithic affinities, notably convergent scrapers (Fig. 5: 36). Finally, it should also be noted that convergent scrapers, which occur in the lower portion of both the operation A and B deposits, are not one of the Mousterian types which Hole and Flannery indicate persist into the early Upper Paleolithic (cf. Hole and Flannery, 1967, 152, 157).




Fig. 4. Chipped stone artifacts from Eshkaft-e Gavi.




Fig. 5. Chipped stone and bone artifacts from Eshkaft-e Gavi.




In addition to the Middle Paleolithic type artifacts mentioned above, artifacts with affinities to industries which post-date the Upper Paleolithic were also recovered from operation A, suggesting the existence of a terminal and/or post-Pleistocene component in the cave's deposits as well. Unfor- tunately, the rear chamber's deposits, including those probed by operation A, were so extensively disturbed as to preclude the decipherment of their stratigraphic context at this time. Interestingly, while such a component was not encountered in the front chamber deposits probed by operation B, artifacts which appear to post-date the Upper Paleolithic do occur in the screened talus slope soil. Moreover, in the small area along the southern wall of the front chamber where the original floor of the cave remained uncovered by the roof fall, traces of soil were noted clinging to the southern wall of the cave. These traces of soil would appear to indicate that at some point in the past the floor of the front chamber may have been up to 20 cm. higher than its current (eroded) state. While it is difficult to say with certainty, it would appear that the erosion of the front chamber's deposits occurred at some time during the Holocene. This conclusion is suggested by the afore-mentioned presence of post-Pleistocene type artifacts in the screened talus slope soil and by the fact that precipitation levels have only reached their current relatively high state since the end of the Pleistocene (cf. Van Zeist and Bottema, 1977; Wright, 1977). Presumably, the water entered the cave through the original small opening in the roof of the cave mentioned earlier and/or through a small secondary uphill entrance to the cave in the southern corner of the front chamber and washed the front chamber's post-Pleistocene deposits out onto the talus slope.

While the small size of the lithic sample precludes a detailed discussion of the typological affinities of the Eshkaft-e Gavi assemblage to those found at other sites, some points can nevertheless be made about the Paleolithic industries of the Kur Basin as they are represented in the Eshkaft-e Gavi deposits. First, the few recognizably Middle Paleolithic artifacts found in the Eshkaft-e Gavi deposits, i.e. the side and convergent scrapers, appear to be typologically indistinguishable from similar artifacts found at other sites to the north, such as Shanidar, Hazar Merd, and Bisitun, where they are considered to be typical of the "Zagros Mousterian" (Skinner, 1965). On the other hand, the Eshkaft-e Gavi Middle Paleolithic assemblage apparently differs from that of nearby Jahrom, with its relatively "archaic" Middle Paleolithic assemblage, in that the former contains convergent pieces, i.e. points and/or convergent scrapers, while the latter lacks such typically Zagros Mousterian elements (Piperno, 1972). In addition, the former lacks notched pieces, a type not common in Zagros Mousterian assemblages, while the Jahrom assemblage contains them in appreciable quantities.

Second, the Upper Paleolithic material also appears to be similar to contemporary, i.e. Barados- tian, assemblages from Luristan and Kurdistan. In addition, it bears a marked similarity to the assemblage from the nearby site of Shekaft-i Ghad-i Barm-i Shur, also considered to be Baradostian (Piperno, 1974). Thus, it can be considered Baradostian. That is, it contains backed blades, notched blades, burins, and carinated scrapers, as well as pieces with bilateral retouch which may be fragments of a type usually referred to as points. These points, in particular, are considered to be a characteristic Baradostian type (Hole and Flannery, 1967; Smith, 1971; etc.). A few comments about these points are in order at this time. These Baradostian points are typically described as being of a Font Yves/Krems type. However, Font Yves/Krems type points are typically shaped by abrupt to semi-abrupt retouch and tend to occur on rather finely made blades. While such points apparently occur in Baradostian assemblages (e.g. Fig. 5: 29), heavier points shaped by relatively flat bilateral retouch also occur (e.g. Fig. 5: 28); also see Solecki, 1955, pl. 5, Q & R), and would appear to be the other extreme of retouch

whereby these bilaterally worked points were shaped. Finally, the problems of sample size notwithstanding, some parallels between the Eshkaft-e Gavi

and the published description of the Khorramabad Upper Paleolithic material are apparent. This is

significant because unlike the case at Shanidar, the Khorramabad material reflects an essentially uninterrupted evolutionary sequence through the Upper Paleolithic and, as noted earlier, the stratigraphy appears to indicate that a similar situation may exist at Eshkaft-e Gavi. Specifically, Hole and

Flannery (1967) note that in Khorramabad the early Baradostian assemblages are characterized by the continued occurrence of Middle Paleolithic side scrapers, a type called "retouched rods", the afore- mentioned Baradostian points, and backed blades, while burins and notched blades characterize later




Baradostian assemblages along with an occasional side scraper which still occurs in late Baradostian assemblages as a rare type. In addition, they note a decrease in the ratio of worked artifacts to waste flakes from 10 per cent in the early Baradostian (at Yafteh) to 4.5 per cent in the late Baradostian (at Pa

Sangar). While the small size of the Eshkaft-e Gavi sample may make it unrepresentative, a similar

pattern is apparent at Eshkaft-e Gavi in the operation B sequence. That is, side scrapers occur at

depths of 71 to 126 cm., Baradostian points at depths of 96 to 126 cm., and backed blades at depths of 59 to 126 cm. (No retouched rods were recovered from operation B.) On the other hand, all the burins in the sample come from depths of 33 to 85 cm., and notched blades are found no lower than depths of 85 cm. Thus, according to the data from Khorramabad, it would appear that typologically early Baradostian assemblages occur between c. 125 cm. and c. 85 cm. at Eshkaft-e Gavi, with late Barados- tian assemblages occurring at shallower depths. Finally, the ratio of worked tools to waste decreases over time at Eshkaft-e Gavi from c. 15 per cent at depths of about 125 cm. to c. 5 per cent at 15 cm. below the surface, i.e. the top of the lower stratum. This too is consistent with the Khorramabad data.

Returning to the subject of the Eshkaft-e Gavi C14 dates, as noted earlier, they are the product of charcoal samples recovered from depths in the vicinity of 1 m. Thus, according to the sequence proposed above, they are derived from early Baradostian deposits. Unfortunately, as also noted earlier they range over a span of more than 10,000 years and, as is evident in Fig. 3, they are stratigraphically inconsistent. It should also be noted that all were the product of exceptionally small samples and this limited the range within which accurate dates could be obtained to only the past 30,000 years. The small sample size may have contributed to the wide range of dates as well. In any case, the dates as a whole are actually reasonably consistent with the sequence proposed above. For example, a simple mean of the six dates yields a figure of 24,093 B.P. The average depth of the deposits which yielded the dates is approximately 1 m. Thus, according to the sequence proposed above, the 24,093 B.P. mean date corresponds to the approximate mid-point of the early Baradostian deposits. This compares to a set of dates from Shanidar C of between 35,000 and 28,000 B.P. (Solecki, 1963) and a similar but slightly larger range (i.e. 21,000 to 40,000 B.P.) for Yafteh (Hole and Flannery, 1967). A simple mean of the Eshkaft-e Gavi dates, however, is almost certainly too conservative in that it does not take into account the fact that three of the dates used in the calculation of the mean are actually lower limits rather than dates. Thus, if the actual dates could be determined the mean would almost certainly be higher than the 24,039 figure and in still greater agreement with the Shanidar C and Yafteh dates.

As in the case of the chipped stone sample, analysis of the faunal material is handicapped by the small sample size. While the microfauna is still under study, a preliminary analysis of the macrofauna by W. P. Uerpmann and M. A. Zeder (Zeder, pers. comm.) indicates the presence of Gazella, Ovis, Capra, Bos, Equus, and possibly Cervus Elephas as well. Of these, the Gazella remains are apparently the most common, being present in almost every level. In addition to the animal bone, several pieces of human bone were also recovered. All the human bone was recovered from operation A, where it was found in close association but apparently not in a state of articulation. Included is a patella, skull fragment, and clavicle, as well as a few other pieces. Much of it is burnt and fragmentary and a brief examination by T. D. Steward (pers. comm.) leads him to opine that they are anatomically modern, i.e. Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Unfortunately, the context of the human material is unclear. It is apparently derived from a stratum containing substantial quantities of ash, including some noticeable lenses. This stratum occurs only in the rear chamber of the cave where it fills a large shallow (c. 40 cm. deep) pit. The fragmentary nature of the bone, its burnt character, and the scattered parts of the anatomy represented, as well as the stratified nature of the pit deposits in which they were found, suggest that if the human material is

part of a burial, the burial was probably a secondary interment. In addition to the human osteological material, a small fine-grained ground stone slab was found lying on its edge within this stratum but its

relationship to the human bones is unclear. Also recovered from the same deposit was a piece of worked bone (Fig. 5: 38). Burnt like the

human bone, it is a polished solid bone cylinder c. 1 cm. in diameter by c. 4 cm. long with three sets of incised linear marks and one set of incised zig-zags on its surface. While found in the same general context as the human bone, its relationship to the human bone is also unclear, as are the significance of




the markings on its surface. Also undetermined is the type of animal which supplied the bone. In all 58 pieces of chipped stone were taken from the pit stratum at various depths. As usual, the bulk appear to be waste flakes and other by-products of chipped stone production, but included in this total are notched and unnotched blades, bladelets, burin spalls, thumbnail scrapers, end scrapers, and blade core fragments. While all are apparently late Baradostian or later, none of the individual types have narrow temporal implications within that span, nor do they all point to the same subdivision of that span. Thus, while apparently confirming the modern nature of the human skeletal material, the lithic material does nothing to clarify the exact age of the human bones nor their cultural association.

In conclusion, while limited, the work conducted at Eshkaft-e Gavi during the summer of 1978 nevertheless yielded significant results. First, it established a stratified Upper Paleolithic sequence, albeit a sketchy one, for a part of Iran for which only surface collections had hitherto been available. Secondly, it also yielded data with which to approach the problem of the somewhat enigmatic Jahrom assemblage. That is, both the Upper Paleolithic assemblage and the much smaller Middle Paleolithic type lithic assemblage from Eshkaft-e Gavi appear to have affinities to assemblages which occur to the north. While additional work in the future will clarify how the Kur River Basin assemblages relate to their northern counterparts, the Eshkaft-e Gavi data suggest that, in general, from at least the late Middle Paleolithic through the Upper Paleolithic the Kur River Basin can be said to fall within the culture area which encompasses the more northern parts of the Zagros. Thus, if, as the Eshkaft-e Gavi data suggest, Fars falls within the Zagros culture area and if, as the Eshkaft-e Gavi data also suggest, the early Baradostian follows the Zagros Mousterian directly, then in all probability the Jahrom material predates the Zagros Mousterian rather than being a southern contemporary of it.

Finally, the stratigraphy of operation B at Eshkaft-e Gavi points to a continuous occupation of the Kur River Basin by humans from the early Upper Paleolithic through the end of the Pleistocene. Moreover, the presence of Middle Paleolithic type artifacts towards the base of the apparently continuous Eshkaft-e Gavi operation B sequence, suggests that such a continuity of occupation may stretch back into the late Middle Paleolithic as well. Since this is not a feature of all parts of the Zagros, particularly the more northern parts, the discovery of what may prove to be another area within the Zagros in which the transition from Middle to Upper Paleolithic can be examined should ultimately prove enlightening.

CATALOGUE* Fig. 4. Chipped stone artifacts

1 Carinated Scraper (B-65) 2 Carinated Scraper (B-108) 3 Steep Scraper (B-108) 4 Steep Scraper (A-27) 5 Steep Scraper (B-85) 6 Thumbnail Scraper (B-13) 7 Thumbnail Scraper (B-85) 8 Circular Scraper (B-95) 9 Circular Scraper (A-54)

10 Circular Scraper (A-5) 11 End Scraper (B-126) 12 End Scraper (B-65) 13 End Scraper (A-23) 14 End Scraper (B-65) 15 End Scraper (A-63) 16 Bilaterally Retouched Blade (B-85) 17 Backed Blade (B-108) 18 Backed Blade (B-108) 19 Backed Blade (B) 20 Backed Blade (B) 21 Backed Blade (B-78)

Fig. 5. Chipped stone and bone artijacts 22 Polyhedric Burin (B-59) 23 Polyhedric Burin (B-95) 24 Polyhedric Burin (B-65) 25 Dihedral Burin (B-65) 26 Dihedral Burin (B-85) 27 Angle Burin (B-78) 28 Baradostian Point/Flat Marginal Retouch

(B-108) 29 Baradostian Point/Abrupt Marginal Retouch

(B-126) 30 Notched Blade (A Surface) 31 Notched Blade (A-23) 32 Notched Blade (B-19) 33 Side Scraper (B-108) 34 Side Scraper (B-126) 35 Limace/Convergent Scraper (A-57) 36 Convergent Scraper (A-126) 37 Convergent Scraper (B-183) 38 Incised Bone (A).

* Letters and figures in brackets refer to operation and depth in cms.




TABLE 1

CHIPPED STONE FREQUENCIES OPERATION B

OQ) o o U0)

C O

E M U0 OC) - z _ 0 M c _0

4---0 _ a) 0 a) -0)0)c• -0

COa) Q- a) a) m

CO 0) COL COL -0 CZ0)

'-"_ o o- "U) o

5

20 1 5.0

79 1 1 2.5

-25 - 51

47

-50- 19 1 5.3

150 1 1 2 2 4.0

- 75 - 248 1 4 2 1 2 3 1 2 I 6.9

E S109 2 1 1 3.7

F--

_u -100 - 79 1 2 4 2 1 1 1 152

34 1 2 2 1 17.6 -125 --

4

14

-150 -_

10 1 10.0

1 - 175 -__

2 1 50.0




Bibliography

Coon, C. S., 1951. Cave Explorations in Iran (Philadelphia, University Museum Monographs). Hole, F. and K. V. Flannery, 1967. "The prehistory of southwestern Iran: A preliminary report", PPS XXXIII, 147-206. Piperno, M., 1972. "Jahrom, a Middle Paleolithic site in Fars, Iran", East and West XXII, 183-197.

, 1974. "Upper Paleolithic caves in southern Iran: preliminary report", East and West, XIV, 9-13. Rosenberg, M., 1980. "Paleolithic and Early Neolithic settlement in the Mary Dasht, Iran" (Paper presented to the Society for

American Archaeology, May 1st 1980). Skinner, J. H., 1965. The Flake Industries of Southwest Asia: A Typological Study (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia

University). Smith, P. E. L., 1971. "The Paleolithic of Iran", in Milanges de Prihistoire d'Archaeo-civilisation et d'Ethnologie offerts a' Andre

Varagnac (Paris: Ecole Pratique des Haute Etudes, VIe Section, Centre de Recherches Historiques), 681-695. Solecki, R. S., 1955. "Shanidar cave, a Paleolithic site in northern Iraq", Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution 1954, 389-

425.

, 1963. "The prehistory of Shanidar valley, northern Iraq", Science 139, 179-193.

Sumner, W., 1972. Cultural Development in the Kur River Basin, Iran, an Archaeological Analysis of Settlement Patterns (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of Pennsylvania). Van Zeist, W. and S. Bottema, 1977. "Palynological investigations in western Iran", Palaeohistoria XIX, 19-85. Wright, H. E.,Jr., 1977. "Environmental change and the origins of agriculture in the Old and New Worlds", in The Origins of

Agriculture (C. A. Reed, ed., The Hague), 281-318.



report on the 1978 sondage at eshkaft-e gavi

Documents