28
Documenta Praehistorica XLVII (2020)
Introduction
The Kobuleti site is located in western Georgia (Fig.
1). This area belongs to one of the regions of the
South Caucasus, situated by the Black Sea. This area
played an important role in the development of the
neolithization processes in Eastern Europe. The South
Caucasus used to be a transit region through which
the Neolithic innovations from the Near East were
transmitted. Recently a large number of Early Holo-
cene sites on the territory of Armenia and Georgia
has been studied, and their materials indicate that
their culture originated in the areas of primary neo-
lithization (Arimura et al. 2009; Kadowaki et al.
2016).
Concurrently, we observe that the process of migra-
tion to Caucasus from Anatolia, Iran, and Iraq had
begun long before the development of the Neolithic
culture. The Trialetian Kotias Klde complex (Meshve-
liani et al. 2007) gives us some evidence of the mi-
gration from Anatolia. Its complex is similar to Hal-
Kobuleti site> the evidence of Early Holocene occupation
in Western Georgia
Guram Chkhatarashvili 1, Valery Manko2
1 Department of Stone Age, Ajara Museum, Batumi, GA
gurami.chxa87@yahoo.com
2 Institute of Archaeology of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, UA
valery_manko@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT – In the 1970–1980s the fieldwork in the Kobuleti Village revealed more than 30 000 ar-
tefacts associated with the Early Neolithic period. However, recent fieldwork in Kobuleti, carried out
by the authors, demonstrated that the cultural layers of the site belong to the Early Holocene period.
The stone industry of the site has indicated the use of blank removal. The conic and bullet shaped
cores were used in order to get bladelets and microblades. The complex of flint and obsidian tools
consists of numerous retouched blades, bladelets and microblades, burins, and chisels. There are
series of bladelets and microblades with abrupt retouch. Generally speaking, the typology of the
complex indicates that the site was used as a temporary hunting camp.
IZVLE∞EK – V 70. in 80. letih 20. stoletja so pri izkopavanjih v vasi Kobuleti odkrili ve≠ kot 30 000
najdb iz obdobja zgodnjega neolitika. Novej∏a izkopavanja, ki so potekala pod vodstvom obeh avtor-
jev, so pokazala, da lahko kulturne plasti postavimo v ≠as zgodnjega holocena. Na najdi∏≠u so ohra-
njeni dokazi o uporabi odstranjevanja polizdelkov kot del produkcije kamnitih izdelkov. Koni≠no in
kroglasto oblikovana jedra so uporabljali za izdelavo klin in mikroklinic. Kompleksni zbir orodij iz
ro∫enca in obsidiana je sestavljen iz ∏tevilnih retu∏iranih klin, klinic in mikroklinic in razli≠nih dlet.
Nekatere kline in mikroklinice imajo sledove strmih retu∏. Na splo∏no tipologija tega zbira ka∫e na
to, da je bil prostor uporabljen kot za≠asni lovski tabor.
KEY WORDS – Kobuleti; Early Holocene period; hunter-gatherers; stone tools; migration
KLJU∞NE BESEDE – Kobuleti; zgodnji holocen; lovci in nabiralci; kamnita orodja; migracije
Najdi[;e Kobuleti>
dokaz o zgodnje holocenski poselitvi v zahodni Gruziji
DOI> 10.4312\dp.47.2
Kobuleti site> the evidence of Early Holocene occupation in Western Georgia
29
Excavations of the site were resumed by the expedi-
tion of the Batumi Shota Rustaveli State University
in 2019. The authors of this article studied an area
of 32m2.
The geographical position of Kobuleti
The Kobuleti site is located on the territory of the
Kobuleti Village in Adjara (Georgia), on a cape on
the left bank of the Kintrishi River. The cape, sur-
rounded by two riverbeds, occupies an area of about
50x50m, towering 16–25m above the river level.
The cape is situated 60m a.s.l. The cape is composed
of basalt rocks (Fig. 2), and only its upper part is as-
sociated with sediments of the paleo-soils layer.
Geographically, the site is situated on the Colchis
Plain, which occupies a part of the coastal territory.
The Kintrishi River flows along the southern part of
the plain, at the very boundary with the foothills.
Currently, the Colchis Plain belongs to the subtro-
pical climate zone, but this does not mean that the
climate was the same at the beginning of the Holo-
cene, when the site was abandoned. At the beginning
of the Holocene the territory of Western Georgia
was characterized by a rather temperate climate; co-
niferous species of trees, including fir, spruce, and
pine, were widespread.
The inhabitants of the site, the-
refore, had chosen a strategical-
ly convenient place for settle-
ment, only 15km from the sea
coast, on the banks of a river
flowing into the Black Sea, on
the boundary of two landscape
zones – the valley and the foot-
hills.
Stratigraphy of the site
During the excavations Gogitid-
ze paid little attention to strati-
graphy. He pointed out that the
discoveries were related to the
bottom of the humus layer on
top of a brown loam layer at
the depth of 0.5–1.0m. Gogitid-
ze’s descriptions indicated that
the site is not stratified. How-
ever, in 2019, in the central part
of the cape, we managed to find
an area with clearly defined
stratigraphy. We were able to
lan Çemi (Rosenberg 1994) in North-East Anatolia
and indicates the movement of Trialetian Early Holo-
cene inhabitants from Anatolia to the South Cauca-
sus. Excavations of the Kobuleti site have determined
that this case was not the only one, since the mate-
rials from Kobuleti reflect an undoubted connection
with the migration of the Early M’lefaatien popula-
tion, which was also still in the Pre-pottery phase of
development.
The site became known in 1960 as a result of re-
search by Nino Berdzenishvili and Lamara. Nebierid-
ze (Berdzenishvili, Nebieridze 1964). However, ex-
cavations were only undertaken many years later,
between 1971–1986. These were carried out by Ser-
go Gogitidze, who uncovered about 600m2 of the site
(Gogitidze 2008). The result was a collection of stone
artefacts (more than 30 000), including about 2000
tools. The research results were published, but this
publication left numerous questions unanswered. The
author was unable to ascertain the cultural affiliation
of the site, failed to establish the stratigraphy of the
site, or to determine the connection between the in-
depth artefacts and materials of the Stone Age.
Materials from this site have been associated with
the Early Neolithic in Georgian historiography, al-
though there are no reasons for this.
Fig. 1. Early Holocene sites with bullet-shaped cores and with microbla-
des with abrupt retouch. Map of sites location.
Guram Chkhatarashvili, Valery Manko
30
make a trench in an area with a con-
centration of basalt stones, which had
created a kind of stratigraphic trap for
deposits.
As a result, we were able to distinguish
layers of loams of various shades of
brown under a layer of humus. We re-
corded the following stratigraphy in
the central part of the excavation site:
❶ 0–0.2m: a layer of black humus
with sand;
❷ 0.2–0.3m: a layer of dark brown
loam with an admixture of humus;
❸ 0.3–0.45m: a layer of brown loam;
❹ 0.45–0.65m: a layer of light brown
loam with a large amount of basalt gravel;
❺ Below 0.65m: a layer of yellow loam.
The cultural layer was found in the brown loam la-
yer, while the yellow loam layer was absolutely ste-
rile. The stratigraphic layer 2 had been the most af-
fected by various kinds of destruction, including
flushing and using the land for agriculture. Never-
theless, the lower boundary of the layer was deter-
mined very clearly. The layer contained many basalt
stones, and its lower boundary made it possible to
clearly separate complexes of different time periods.
The same method enabled us to separate the strati-
graphic layers 3 and 4.
Thus layers 2–4 are cultural layers of different time
periods. The cultural layers have been assigned the
following numeration: 0 (layer 2), 1 (layer 3) and 2
(layer 4). In the process of the excavations we disco-
vered 12 pits with diameters of 0.7–0.9m and depth
of up to 0.5m. Pit 5 is connected to layer 0, pit 6 to
layer 1, and pits 1–4, 7–12 were connected to cultu-
ral layer 2 (Figs. 3, 4).
Therefore, we can see that the site had existed for a
very long period of time, enough for the deposition
of a layer of brown loams with a depth of up to 0.45m.
The chipped stone industry
We will summarize the information about the stone
industry from the site. A total of 1533 artefacts have
been discovered, 938 made of flint and 595 made
of obsidian (see Table 1).
The technique of blank removal is used to obtain
blades and microblades by the method of manual
pressing. Out of the 625 blade blanks and their seg-
ments, only 25 are associated with blades. We have
discovered 194 bladelets and 139 microblades. The
absolute majority of bladelets and microblades have
a width of 0.5–1.2cm. To obtain such bladelets and
microblades, bullet shaped cores were used (Fig.
5.1). The discoveries of round tablets are also asso-
ciated with the same cores (Fig. 5.2), with the nega-
tives from removing flakes to correct the working
platform.
In general, we can say that flint flaking occurred
mainly outside the site. This theory is supported by
the evidence of the ratio of blades and flakes. There
are more blades presented than flakes. This fact in-
dicates that most of the artefacts were brought to
the site already ready. Only a small number of bla-
delets and microblades were produced on the terri-
tory of the site (it is important to note that the pro-
portions of blades and flakes on our excavation area
are similar to the proportions found by Gogitidze).
This conclusion is supported by having discovered
only an extremely small number of flakes, chips and
chunks. They are also smaller than the blades. This
suggests that the site was visited periodically, and
that the base camp of the visitors was in a different
place.
There are 262 tools in the complex, 105 of them
made of flint and 157 made of obsidian. The most
numerous are the retouched blades, bladelets and
microblades, as well as their segments (89). Most
such artefacts have a small semi-steep retouch along
the edge (Fig. 5.28,31), but there are some with alter-
native retouching (Fig. 5.22). There are a lot of bla-
des with notches (27). There also are marked arte-
facts with single wide notches (Fig. 5.25) and arte-
Fig. 2. Kobuleti: general view from the south.
Kobuleti site> the evidence of Early Holocene occupation in Western Georgia
31
facts with 2–3 edge notches (Fig. 5.26–27,29–30,
33–35).
The burins are presented in a large series (62), and
are characterized by great typological diversity. There
are some burins on truncated facetted blades (Fig.
5.11,13–15), including bilateral burins (Fig. 5.14).
There are many angle burins on broken blades (Fig.
5.12,16,19,24), such burins are often double (Fig. 5.
12,16). There also is a symmetrical dihedral burin
(Fig. 5.23). All of the listed burins are made on bla-
des. All the transverse (Fig.5.22) and dihedral angle
burins (Fig.5.17–21) are made on flakes. There is
one combined tool: a burin on a truncated facetted
blade-endscraper.
There are very few scrapers (15) in comparison to
burins. All of them are made on flakes and are end-
scrapers (Fig. 5.3–7). There is a series of chisels (15)
made on massive segments of blades (Fig. 5.9–10).
Some of the retouched flakes were probably used as
scrapers and chisels (9).
Truncated blades were also found (19), including
blades with oblique truncation (Fig. 5.8.37) and a
negative of a microburin spall on a blade with ob-
lique truncation (Fig. 5.36).
We can observe quite a representative complex as-
sociated with hunting tools. This is a series of blade-
lets and microblades (25) with abrupt retouch. These
artefacts fall into two groups according to the width
of the working blank. These are microblades and bla-
delets with a thickness of about 1mm (Fig. 5.38,
40,42–47, 51–54,57–58), and massive microblades
and bladelets with a thickness of up to 3mm (Fig.
5.39,41,48–50,55–56).
We have concluded, based on the results of a use-
wear analysis, that these artefacts are associated
with hunting tools. We don’t see any traces on the
edges of these tools that would indicate intensively
using them as knives. On the other hand, we observe
the traces on the retouching surfaces of these tools,
indicating that they were inserted into the bone ar-
tefacts. In our opinion, the backed bladelets and mi-
croblades with abrupt retouch were made to be in-
serted into bone points. We know of discoveries of
such points in Early Holocene complexes of the
South Caucasus. For example, such a point was found
in the Early Holocene complex of Kvachara (Bader,
Tsereteli 1989.Fig. 62.20).
The use-wear analysis of flint and obsidian artefacts
was carried out in the laboratory of Traceological
Department at Georgian National Museum. The arte-
facts were studied in two stages. The first was the
microscopic study of the surface of the sample. Dif-
ferent types of completely natural traces are left on
the surface (lines, scratches, polishes, blunts, etc.)
of the tools after usage (Semenov 1957; Semenov,
Korobkova 1983), for the study of which binocular
(MBS-9) and metallographic (Olympus) microscopes
were used. The second stage of the research con-
cerns the functional analysis of artefacts, which re-
sults in the classification (Korobkova 1987; Esaki-
ya 2005) of tools, on the basis of which the econo-
my, its leading and secondary industries, site func-
tions, economic characteristics and so forth are re-
vealed.
In general, the typology of the complex indicates that
the site was used as a temporary hunting logistic
camp, and very few production activities were car-
ried out here.
Fig. 3. Kobuleti: pit 7.
Fig. 4. Kobuleti: outlines of pits 7–12.
Guram Chkhatarashvili, Valery Manko
32
Fig. 5. Kobuleti: lithic artefacts. Flint: 1–2, 4–9, 11, 14–18, 20–21, 23–28, 32; obsidian: 3, 10, 12–13, 19,
22, 29–31, 33–58.
Kobuleti site> the evidence of Early Holocene occupation in Western Georgia
33
Cultural affiliation of the site
The question of the origin of the Kobuleti industry
cannot be solved as it is based only on the local ma-
terials. At the end of the Pleistocene, there was sim-
ply no single industry on the territory of South Cau-
casus that could have had a connection with the Ko-
buleti complex.
When we compare the M’lefaat industry with the Ko-
buleti complex, we must refer to the materials of the
earliest M’lefaatien sites. This is because the appea-
rance of the Kobuleti industry was not accompanied
by starting cattle breeding and agriculture. Mean-
while, traces of cattle breeding in the M’lefaat com-
plexes can be traced back to the 9th millennium BC
(Zeder 2008). Therefore, only migrants during the
very beginning of the Holocene could have brought
the traditions of a hunting society. Because of this,
it is essential for us to compare the materials of Ko-
buleti with the complexes of M’lefaat (Dittermore
1983), Karim Shahir (Howe 1983), and the lower la-
yers of Chaga Sefid (Hole 1977). We can see a deve-
loped pressure technique in the materials of these
sites. Based on the use of conical and bullet-shaped
cores, we observe a combination of types of trun-
cated blades and bladelets with abrupt-retouched
edges. Other types of tools (burins, scrapers, notch
tools) are also common within
the Kobuleti industry. It is worth
noting that the burins with bila-
teral forms are similar in both
cultures. In addition, the Early
M’lefaatian sites are undoubtedly
older than Kobuleti, since almost
all of the listed sites are dated as
the Final Pleistocene. At the mo-
ment, we have only one absolute
date for Kobuleti (layer 2, pit 7):
8670±100 uncal BP (SPb-3084).
Thus, the industry of Kobuleti and
the early M’lefaat have many simi-
larities, so we can presume there
was a migration of some of the
M’lefaatian population to the ter-
ritory of the South Caucasus.
This migration was the first step
in the spread of the pressing flak-
ing techniques in South Caucasus
and the South of Eastern Europe
(Crimea, the Steppe zone of Ukra-
ine and Moldova), where the Kuk-
rek Culture with the same characteristics of the co-
nical cores and tools developed from the first half of
the Preboreal (Manko 2013; 2015).
At the same time, we must understand that M’lefa-
atian migration did not lead to the spread of animal
domestication in the region, since at the beginning
of the Holocene carriers of the M’lefaatian industry
also did not practice reproductive economy methods
(Zeder 2008).
Possible M’lefaat migration to the Caucasus
The theoretical basis for the search for arguments
about the possibility of migration and its starting
and ending points was the theory of Lev S. Klein
(1999) about the archaeological criteria of migra-
tions. Klein gives the basic criteria of migration in
archaeology as legality (complex similarity of two
complexes of cultures of the initial and final point
of migration), unpreparedness (spontaneity, abrupt
change of cultures) and a contact in time and space.
He believes that the simultaneous application of all
the criteria is excessive, because it can only happen
in an ideal situation, when the archaeologist has a
comprehensive source base. However, when ana-
lysing the migration of the M’lefaatian population
to the territory of Western Georgia, we can apply all
Type Flint % Obsidian % Total %
cores 2 0.21 1 0.17 3 0.20
tablets 3 0.32 1 0.17 4 0.26
blades 17 1.81 8 1.34 25 1.63
bladelets 110 11.73 84 14.12 194 12.65
microblades 83 8.85 76 12.77 159 10.37
flakes 180 19.19 92 15.46 272 17.74
primary flakes 5 0.53 1 0.17 6 0.39
chunks 156 16.63 65 10.92 221 14.42
chips 271 28.89 107 17.98 378 24.66
burin spalls 6 0.64 3 0.50 9 0.59
tools 105 11.19 157 26.39 262 17.09
burins 32 30.48 30 19.11 62 23.66
scrapers 6 5.71 9 5.73 15 5.73
burin-endscraper 1 0.95 0 0.00 1 0.38
chisels 9 8.57 6 3.82 15 5.73
retouched flakes 5 4.76 4 2.55 9 3.44
retouched blades,
30 28.57 59 37.58 89 33.97
bladelets, microblades
notched blades,
10 9.52 17 10.83 27 10.31
bladelets, microblades
truncated blades,
7 6.67 12 7.64 19 7.25
bladelets, microblades
microblades with
5 4.76 20 12.74 25 9.54
abrupt retouch
total 938 100\61.19 595 100\38.81 1533 100
Tab. 1. Kobuleti: typology of flint and obsidian artefacts.
Guram Chkhatarashvili, Valery Manko
34
three criteria. Of course, we cannot consider the ap-
plication of all the criteria excessive, because we only
have stone tools for analysis.
We estimate the similarity of Kobuleti with M’lefaat
complexes as almost complete. We find the follow-
ing types of artefacts that are common:
❶ Conical cores for obtaining bladelets and micro-
blades with the use of the pressing technique;
❷ Bladelets and microblades with abrupt retouch;
truncated facetted bladelets;
❸ Blades with flat ventral retouch;
❹ Bilateral burins on truncated facetted blades;
❺ Occasional use of the microburin technique in the
process of truncating faceting.
The criterion of spontaneity is also almost ideal. In
the territory of Western Georgia, the emergence of
the Kobuleti industry comes as a surprise. The cul-
ture appears in fully completed form at the begin-
ning of the Holocene. The previous development of
the archaeological cultures of Western Georgia does
not allow us to study the participation of some
groups of the indigenous population in the genesis
of the Kobuleti industry. The development of the
pressing technique was an innovative feature that
was not characteristic of any of the previous archa-
eological cultures of the Caucasus.
Absolutely innovative were the forms of cores and
hunting weapons. The only archaeological culture
that could theoretically act as a precursor to the Ko-
buleti industry was the Epigravettian, which disap-
peared in the Western Caucasus before the advent
of the Kobuleti industry. Even if we assume that
some part of the Epigravettian population was in-
volved in the formation of the Kobuleti industry, the
huge number of innovative features cannot explain
it. Moreover, one of the latest sites of the Caucasus,
the Kasoghsky Cave, has no signs of using pressing
flaking technologies to obtain blades (Golovanova,
Doronichev 2012). Thus, the spontaneity of the
emergence of the Kobuleti industry in Georgia is un-
questionable.
The criterion of contact in time and space can also
be traced. The available absolute dates convincing-
ly show that the M’lefaat industry appeared earlier
than the Kobuleti industry, but also coexisted with
it. Such chronological evidence indicates that the
migration vector could be directed only from the ter-
ritory of Iran and Iraq to the territory of Georgia.
Mapping of the oldest complexes of all three indu-
stries clearly shows the route of the movement of mi-
grants, on which there were no significant obstacles.
Thus, we have all the theoretical prerequisites to
draw conclusions about the possibility of global mi-
gration of the M’lefaatian population in the Cauca-
sus.
Conclusions
The migration of the M’lefaat population led to the
spread of the pressing technique, first to the territo-
ry of Western Georgia, and then to the territory of
Ukraine and Moldova (the so-called Kukrek Culture).
Later, the carriers of this technology became the
founders of the Neolithic culture on the territory of
the South Caucasus and the south of Eastern Europe.
In Georgia, the sites of Anaseuli 1 and 2, Gurianta
(Nebieridze 1972), Darkveti layer 6 (Korobkova
1996) appeared when the Kobuleti traditions were
developing on the Neolithic stage. On the territory
of Ukraine, Neolithic Sursk and Donetsk cultures
appeared on the basis of the Kukrek culture.
This work was supported by the Batumi Shota Ru-
staveli State University [grant number: 02-12/19].
Special thanks to the Emeritus Professor of the Ba-
tumi Shota Rustaveli State University, Amiran Kakhi-
dze, for the invaluable consultations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Kobuleti site> the evidence of Early Holocene occupation in Western Georgia
35
Arimura M., Chataigner C., and Gasparyan B. 2009. Kmlo
2. An Early Holocene Site in Armenia. Neo-Lithic 2009(2):
17–19.
Bader N. O., Tsereteli L. D. 1989. Mezolit Kavkaza. In L. V.
Koltsov (ed.), Arheologiya SSSR. Nauka. Moskva: 93–105.
(in Russian)
Berdzenishvili N., Nebieridze L. 1964. New stone age sites
in Kintrishi gorge. South-West Georgia I: 7–16. (in Geor-
gian)
Dittermore M. 1983. The Soundings at M’lefaat. In L. S.
Braidwood, R. J. Braidwood, B. Howe, C. A. Reed, and P.
J. Watson (eds.), Prehistoric Archaeology along The Zag-
ros Flanks. Oriental Institute Publications 105. The Uni-
versity of Chicago. Chicago: 671–692.
Esakiya K. 2005. Economic efficiency of meso-Eneolithic
settlements in Southern Caucasus: the results of the tra-
ceological analysis of stone instruments. In L. Longo, N.
Skakun (eds.), Prehistoric Technology. 40 years later:
Functional studies and the Russian legacy. Proceedings
of the International Congress Verona (Italy) 20–23 April
2005. British Archaeological Reports IS 1783. Archaeo-
press. Oxford: 179–183.
Gogitidze S. 2008. Archaeological sites in Kintrishi Gorge
(Early Neolithic Site Kobuleti). Batumi Shota Rustaveli
State University. Batumi. (in Georgian)
Golovanova L. B., Doronichev V. B. 2012. Imereti culture
of the Upper Paleolithic of Caucasus. In G. V. Sinitsina, I.
V. Fediunin (eds.), Past and Present Studies, Prehistoric
Eurasia: on Aleksei N. Sorokin’s 60th birthday. Institute
of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Mos-
cow: 59–102.
Hole F. 1977. Studies in the archaeological history of the
Deh Luran plain. The Excavation of Chagha Sefid. Me-
mories of the Museum of Anthropology. University of Mi-
chigan. Ann Arbor.
Howe B. 1983. Karim Shahir. In L. S. Braidwood, R. J.
Braidwood, B. Howe, C. A. Reed, and P. J. Watson (eds.),
Prehistoric Archaeology along the Zagros Flanks. Orien-
tal Institute Publications 105. The University of Chicago.
Chicago: 23–154.
Klein L. S. 1999. Migration: Archaeological evidence. Stra-
tum plus 1: 52–71.
Korobkova G. F. 1987. Economic Complexes of Early
agricultural and Cattle Breeding Societies in the South-
ern USSR. Nauka. Leningrad. (in Russian)
1996. The Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the
Southern Caucasus. In S. K. Kozłowski, H. G. K. Gebel
(eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fer-
tile Crescent, Their Contemporaries in Adjastent Re-
gions. Ex Oriente. Berlin: 57–89.
Kadowaki S., Guliyev F., and Nishiaki Y. 2016. Chipped
stone technology of the earliest agricultural village in the
southern Caucasus: Haci Elamxanli Tepe. In O. Kaelin, H.
P. Mathys (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th ICAANE, vol. 3.
Harrassowitz Verlag. Wiesbaden: 709–723.
Manko V. 2013. Finalnyi paleolit – neolit Krymu: kultur-
no-istorychnyi protses. O. Filiuk. Kyiv. (in Ukrainian)
2015. Pohodjennia kukretskoi kulturi. Naukovi studii
8: 33–62. (in Ukrainian)
Meshveliani T., Bar-Oz G., Bar-Yosef O., Belfer-Cohen A.,
Boaretto E., Jakeli N., Koridze I., and Matskevich Z. 2007.
Mesolithic Hunters at Kotias Klde, Western Georgia: Preli-
minary Results. Paleoorient 33(2): 47–58.
https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.2007.5220
Nebieridze L. 1972. The Neolithic of Western Transcau-
casia. Metsniereba. Tbilisi. (in Georgian)
Rosenberg M. 1994. A Preliminary Description of the Li-
thic Industry from Hallan Cemi. In H. G. Gebel, S. K. Koz-
łowski (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the
Fertile Crescent. SENEPSE 1. Ex Oriente. Berlin: 223–238.
Semenov S. A. 1957. Primeval Technics. Materials and
Studies in the Archaeology the USSR Academy of Scien-
ces. Leningrad. Moscow. (in Russian)
Semenov S. A. Korobkova G. F. 1983. Ancient Manufac-
turing Technology. The USSR Academy of Sciences. Lenin-
grad. (in Russian)
Zeder M. A. 2008. Animal domestication in the Zagros: an
update and directions for future research. In E. Vila, L.
Gourichon, A. M. Choyke, and H. Buitenhuis (eds.), Archa-
eozoology of the Near East VIII: proceedings of the 8th
International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of
Southwestern Asia and Adjacent Areas. Maison de l’Ori-
ent et de la Méditerranée. Lyon: 243–278.
References