Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros48-1Defining Dalma: an Incipient Moun...

Résumés

Résumé. Depuis des décennies, la culture archéologique de Dalma dans le nord du Zagros intrigue les archéologues et suscite un regain d’intérêt renforcé lorsque des tessons liés à Dalma furent découverts sur plusieurs sites récemment fouillés au Kurdistan irakien. La recherche sur Dalma s’est concentrée sur les vases peints et manipulés en surface très distinctifs, surtout lorsqu’on les compare aux traditions contemporaines de céramique peinte en noir sur fond brun de la Grande Mésopotamie et du sud de l’Iran. Plusieurs recherches archéométriques ont pu établir que la poterie de Dalma a toujours été produite localement, quel que soit l’endroit où elle fut trouvée, et qu’elle présente un haut degré de variation microscopique dans les pâtes et les méthodes de production, malgré l’apparente uniformité des formes de récipients et des motifs décoratifs. Pour expliquer ce phénomène, les archéologues ont soutenu à plusieurs reprises que des groupes de nomades pastoraux effectuaient des migrations saisonnières entre les communautés de Dalma et les régions environnantes, facilitant ainsi la communication au sein du territoire de Dalma et produisant, selon les besoins, des récipients de cuisson avec des marques de surface distinctes. Cependant, ce modèle ne permet pas de prouver l’existence d’un nomadisme hautement spécialisé et à longue distance pendant le Chalcolithique et n’explique pas nécessairement la différence marquée, pendant des siècles, entre les petites communautés de Dalma basées dans des villages et les sociétés environnantes qui subissaient de profondes transformations sociales. Je soutiens plutôt que la culture archéologique de Dalma reflète un rejet délibéré de ces nouvelles formes d’organisation sociale par les communautés qui ont préféré maintenir leurs modes de vie adaptatifs et égalitaires dans les hautes terres du nord du Zagros.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

Introduction

1Since their first identification at the site of Dalma Tepe in northwestern Iran between 1957-1961 (Young 1962, 1963; Hamlin 1975), painted and surface-manipulated ceramic vessels that characterize the Early Chalcolithic of the early 5th millennium BCE in the northern Zagros have fascinated prehistoric archaeologists working in western Iran. The initial impression that these ceramics appeared suddenly and constituted the first archaeological culture in the Zagros to spread uniformly across a large region of mountainous plains presented archaeologists with a conundrum. With the discovery of small amounts of similar surface-manipulated sherds within Ubaid assemblages in northeastern Iraq, especially during salvage work in the Hamrin Valley, the intrigue grew, drawing the attention now also of Mesopotamian archaeologists. The cessation of most archaeological fieldwork in Iran in the 1980s and next in Iraq in the 1990s led attention away from these Dalma ceramics, but with the renewal of excavations of Chalcolithic sites in Iraqi Kurdistan, which again encountered these unfamiliar surface-manipulated wares, interest in the nature of Dalma and its distribution has returned in full swing. However, the enduring divide between Iranian and Mesopotamian archaeology continues to cause confusion about the definition of Dalma material culture. Despite a series of thorough analyses of these Early Chalcolithic ceramics, misidentifications and an overgeneralization of the “Dalma” label are widespread due to a general lack of large-scale excavations in the Zagros and detailed publications of the tradition’s type sites. In response, this contribution provides a synthesis of research into the Early Chalcolithic of the Zagros with an evaluation of previously proposed interpretations. Taking issue with an often default assumption that prehistoric Zagros societies included a large component of pastoral nomadic groups, I propose an alternative hypothesis to explain the emergence and distribution of Dalma material culture.

Why Dalma?

2The fascination with Dalma ceramics in contrast to the lack of attention for previous Neolithic painted traditions, such as the polychrome Halaf-related J-ware, or later black-on-buff/white Chalcolithic ceramic assemblages that are often ignored in studies of those periods in neighboring Iraq is in itself an interesting topic to explore. The colourful description of Dalma painted ware by T. Cuyler Young Jr. in 1963 offers at least a partial explanation: “Yet when one directs attention to the decoration of this painted ware, it is at once clear that here is an artistic tradition of the highest order […] The potters of the period apparently gave their imagination free reign and sought to explore almost every avenue of geometric design open to them” (Young 1963: 38; fig. 1).

Fig. 1 – Reconstructed Dalma painted vessels from Dalma Tepe.

Fig. 1 – Reconstructed Dalma painted vessels from Dalma Tepe.

Courtesy of the Penn Museum, cf. Penn Museum online collections for additional photographs of pottery from Dalma Tepe.

3It is, however, the aesthetic contrast with the contemporary Ubaid and Ubaid-related black-on-buff wares of Mesopotamia and southwestern Iran on the one hand and the black-on-red wares of northern Iran on the other that highlight the unique nature of Dalma painted pottery. Arguably, while there is some overlap in geometric patterns (e.g. zigzags) that might reveal a shared inspiration at the beginning of these different traditions, Dalma stands out in its bold aesthetic choices with red to dark maroon painted designs applied on a white (or at least a pale) background with a sense of horror vacui, covering the entire exterior of the vessel and often so dense that the design can be read in negative with the reserved spaces forming white lines on a dark painted background. This contrast with the more balanced and sometimes hastily executed designs of Ubaid black-on-buff painted vessels is amplified by the discovery of occasional Ubaid painted sherds at Dalma sites in the Zagros that clearly stand out (Hamlin 1975: fig. 10.I; Henrickson 1985a: 69, fig. 12; Saed Mucheshi et al. 2017: fig. 12).

4The Dalma surface-manipulated or impressed ware forms a second visually striking class of pottery that occurs in large quantities at Dalma sites in the Zagros (Hamlin 1975: fig. 8, pl. 2; Levine and Young 1987: fig. 6; Alden et al. 2021). These vessels might be less aesthetically pleasing, but the dense cover of incised or impressed marks (or rarely applications) over the entire exterior of vessels is easily recognizable and memorable. The question of the function of such surface treatment offers an interesting question to ceramicists interested in ancient production methods and the relationship to vessel use (Tonoike 2012: 74-75; Alden et al. 2021: 4-8). However, such surface treatment is not unique to the Dalma tradition or to the Early Chalcolithic. This opens avenues for speculations into the origins of this practice and the relationship of Dalma pottery with earlier potting practices. At the same time, the surface manipulation is not the sole characteristic of this pottery; the overall production and fabric needs to be taken into account. Therefore, not every sherd in an Early Chalcolithic context with incisions or impressions can be assigned to the Dalma-specific production even though such overgeneralization tends to occur (e.g. Chiocchetti and Fornaris 2013: 105).

  • 1 For example, remarks about the nature of Dalma as a separate archaeological culture or an amalgam o (...)
  • 2 An earlier version of this map with a more restricted distribution within the northern Zagros appea (...)

5Despite these distinct features of the Dalma archaeological assemblages in the Zagros, questions have arisen in recent discussions (although not yet in print to my knowledge) whether Dalma is a distinct tradition or an unfounded archaeological fabrication that groups together different but geographically overlapping ceramic types considering the different regional distribution of the Dalma painted and surface-manipulated wares.1 Whereas Dalma painted ware is largely restricted to the northern Zagros, Dalma impressed ware has a much wider distribution extending into the Trans-Tigridian region and the southern Caucasus (fig. 2).2 In other words, this interpretation accepts the argument that Dalma impressed ware is not restricted to a specific archaeological culture or a real prehistoric ceramic tradition, but rather was a functional type of ceramic vessel that was in use by different communities across different regions. Such an approach also fits with a model that relies on the existence of pastoral nomadic groups who seasonally migrated over long distances and could have developed a subset of material culture that fits their distinctive needs. However, as I explain below, Dalma impressed ware does in fact correlate closely with the general Dalma ceramic tradition. It only occurs outside the core Dalma region in small amounts, much more restricted in variety of execution, and often with different fabrics that lack distinct characteristics of Dalma pottery.

Fig. 2 – Map showing the estimated extent of the Dalma territory and distribution of Dalma impressed and painted sherds.

Fig. 2 – Map showing the estimated extent of the Dalma territory and distribution of Dalma impressed and painted sherds.

Map S. Renette.

6Although the focus tends to be on the Dalma surface-manipulated and painted wares, those are not necessarily the main defining features of Dalma assemblages, which fall well within the long-lasting Zagros Chalcolithic potting traditions that differ in important ways from contemporary traditions in Mesopotamia, the Iranian Plateau, and southwestern Iran. The Zagros tradition of chaff-tempered, red-slipped wares with localized productions of painted pottery within an overarching, shared aesthetic scheme can be traced from the late 6th to early 3rd millennium BCE. Defining Dalma, then, becomes a matter of recognizing a distinct Zagros tradition that existed alongside the better-documented Chalcolithic worlds of the Mesopotamian lowlands and the Iranian Plateau.

History of research

  • 3 Additional Dalma pottery was retrieved in a deep sounding at Hasanlu (level IX) in 1960 (Voigt 1976 (...)

7The first Dalma sherds collected in the context of archaeological fieldwork occurred probably during A. Stein’s survey of western Iran (Stein 1940) and in the 1931-1932 French excavations at Tepe Giyan (a few possible Dalma painted sherds can be seen in Contenau and Ghirshman 1935: pls. 40-42), neither of which took specific note of this material. Only systematic excavations in the Ushnu-Solduz region under the University of Pennsylvania’s Hasanlu Project resulted in the first identification of a distinct Early Chalcolithic assemblage, named after its type-site Dalma Tepe. Small-scale excavations at this site were conducted in 1958-1959 and 1961, but never fully published (Hamlin 1975).3 The Hasanlu Project also conducted a series of surveys in the region, which mapped several Dalma period sites in the Ushnu-Solduz valleys (Voigt 1976: fig. 113) and reported additional distribution west of Lake Urmia and reaching as far north as the border with present-day Azerbaijan (Kearton 1969). A few years later in 1968, R. Solecki conducted another survey west of Lake Urmia, also unpublished (Solecki 1969), where he then excavated a small area of a Dalma settlement at Tepe Seavan (Solecki and Solecki 1973). In 1971, S. Swiny covered a large region with an extensive survey in the eastern zone of the northern Zagros where he noticed the presence of Dalma painted and surface-manipulated sherds at several sites as far east as Bijar (Swiny 1975: 79-81, fig. 5). The southern extent of Dalma was identified by the Godin Project in the Kangavar Plain with excavations at Seh Gabi in 1971 and 1973 (Hamlin 1973, 1974; Young and Levine 1974; Levine 1975a; Henrickson 1983). Survey of the Kangavar Plain in 1974 identified at least 20 sites of the Dalma period (Young 1975: 24), but Young’s survey of the Nehavand and Borujerd plains in 1961 immediately to the south identified only very few sherds that can be attributed to the Dalma painted and surface-manipulated production (Young 1966: 230-231), confirmed by absence of Dalma in Khorramabad (Hole 2007) and throughout most of Luristan (Goff 1971). Finally, a survey of the large Mahidasht region in the western central Zagros did not detect Dalma painted sherds and only relatively small numbers of Dalma impressed sherds associated with an Ubaid-related assemblage (Levine 1975b: 488, 1976a: 287, 1976b: 160). This observation was confirmed during short excavations at the Neolithic to Chalcolithic sites Tepe Siahbid and Chogha Maran (Henrickson 1985a: 73; Renette et al. 2021b).

8As part of a large study to define the chronology of the Zagros Chalcolithic traditions and their interactions with neighboring regions, E. Henrickson conducted the first detailed analysis of Dalma wares (Henrickson 1983, 1985a: 69, 1986: 91-93, 116-121). In order to address the question of the wide distribution of the relative homogeneous Dalma tradition, she applied the first scientific analysis using instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) to identify the source of Dalma pottery from different sites (Henrickson and Vitali 1987). Henrickson’s investigation into this issue laid the groundwork for research into the distribution of Dalma with the formulation of hypothetical interpretative models (discussed below). In more recent years, laboratory-based studies are again tackling this question of Dalma stylistic homogeneity and geographical distribution. Y. Tonoike focused on cross- and intra-site variability in ceramic production methods based on petrographic analysis showing that on a microscopic level Dalma ceramics have a higher degree of variability than is visible macroscopically, which is most likely the result of household-level production rather than workshops (Tonoike 2010, 2012, 2013). A similar study using a combination of petrography and INAA to compare Dalma sherds from 5th millennium contexts at the site of Surezha in the Erbil Plain with those from the type-site Dalma Tepe in northwestern Iran reached the conclusion that Surezha Dalma vessels were locally produced but do have indications of production methods that are similar to those of Zagros communities (Buehlman-Barbeau 2020; Alden et al. 2021). These results suggest that while Dalma pottery was always locally produced by non-specialists, intended for local use, and did not circulate, there was a degree of mobility of Zagros individuals or communities and interaction with neighboring regions behind the wide distribution of stylistically homogeneous Dalma pottery.

Defining Dalma material culture

  • 4 Recent excavations at Nadali Beig in the Songhor region of the central Zagros explored Dalma occupa (...)

9The Dalma archaeological culture is defined by its ceramic assemblage. Pottery is the main defining feature, but other shared aspects of material culture have also been found at various Dalma sites. However, since no Dalma occupation has been investigated through consistent, detailed excavation of a large exposure, defining Dalma material culture remains challenging and incomplete.4 Nevertheless, at every Zagros site where occupation of the Dalma period has been determined, the pottery forms a coherent functional assemblage that consists of the same set of wares and vessel types with only minimal evidence for external influence or foreign ceramic styles, as already described in detail by Henrickson (1986: 116-120). In contrast, in the Trans-Tigridian region, western-central Zagros, and the southern Caucasus where Dalma sherds (mainly Dalma surface-manipulated ware) have also been found, these occur only in small numbers—no more than a few percent of the total amount of pot sherds—and they clearly stand out within the overall assemblage as non-indigenous (Alden et al. 2021; Renette et al. 2021a: 126-130).

Pottery

10The Dalma ceramic assemblage has already been described in detail several times (Young and Levine 1974: 2-4; Hamlin 1975: 117-120; Henrickson 1985a: 69-70, 1986: 91-93; Levine and Young 1987: 21; Tonoike 2010: 29-33, 2012: 66-68). Characteristic of Zagros Chalcolithic wares, Dalma pottery is a handmade, mostly heavily chaff-tempered ceramic tradition with occasional small grit inclusions that consists of four ware categories: plain, red-slipped, painted, and surface-manipulated (predominantly impressed or coarsely incised, but rarely also applications occur). This assemblage is remarkably consistent across sites with Dalma occupation. However, the ware is characterized by macroscopic homogeneity and microscopic diversity. Vessel shapes, stylistic conventions of decoration and surface treatment, and general production methods (similar temper, firing, and slipping) are widely shared throughout the northern and central Zagros. Yet, more detailed studies of decorative motifs (Henrickson 1986; Bahranipoor 2021), manufacturing methods (Vandiver 1987; Tonoike 2010, 2012; Buehlman-Barbeau 2020; Alden et al. 2021), and chemical composition of the clays (Henrickson and Vitali 1987; Alden et al. 2021) reveal a significant degree of highly localized variation, even within the same settlement.

11Between 5500 and 2500 BCE, chaff-tempered, often red-slipped wares were widely produced throughout the northern and central Zagros (Renette and Mohammadi Ghasrian 2020; Renette et al. 2021b). This long-lasting Zagros Chalcolithic production has distinct chronological developments that remain poorly defined yet allow researchers on the ground to distinguish between subperiods. Dalma plain and red-slipped ware is typically distinguishable by a thick, crumbly fabric with heavy chaff temper, resulting in irregularly shaped pot sherds with jagged edges, with a flaky, dark red to maroon or even dark brown-colored slip. Plain ware without slip, consisting of a reddish buff to pinkish fabric, sometimes with a dark grey core, is also common, but the percentages of plain and red-slipped ware in Dalma assemblages are rarely reported. The vessel shapes that constitute the plain and red-slipped wares in Dalma assemblages are generally simple, including hemispherical bowls, larger straight-sided bowls, low trays, vertical-sided basins, and small jars (fig. 3). The most typical small jars are globular with a small upturned rim, sometimes with a slightly stepped shoulder, but occasional jars with a higher neck are also attested. In addition, horn-shaped lugs, often attached to the lower part of the body, and large spool-shaped stemmed bowls with a central perforation (funnel) have been documented at several Dalma sites. Finally, perforated bowl fragments (strainers) have been found at both Seh Gabi and Tepe Namashir. It should be noted that there is some continuity of most of these vessel types into the following period that is characterized by black-on-buff painted pottery (Seh Gabi and Pisdeli painted styles), even if their chronological lifespan remains to be determined in any detail (Young 1966: 235; Young and Levine 1974; Henrickson 1983: 173; Zamani Dadaneh et al. 2021). Plain and red-slipped Dalma sherds have not yet been clearly identified outside the core Dalma region, but at least a few sherds at Kani Shaie seem to fit the description and differ from the otherwise Ubaid plain ware assemblage (fig. 4a-4d).

Fig. 3 – Plain and red-slipped pottery from Dalma sites.

Fig. 3 – Plain and red-slipped pottery from Dalma sites.

Redrawn S. Renette after Solecki and Solecki 1973; Young and Levine 1974; Hamlin 1975; Henrickson 1983; Nobari et al. 2012; Saed Mucheshi et al. 2017.

Fig. 4 – Dalma and Dalma-related pottery from late Ubaid contexts at Kani Shaie.

Fig. 4 – Dalma and Dalma-related pottery from late Ubaid contexts at Kani Shaie.

a. Red-slipped, heavily chaff-tempered rim sherd; b-d. Plain, heavily chaff-tempered body sherds; e. Dalma painted sherd with white slip and faint traces of red slip on interior; f-h. Dalma impressed sherds with traces of maroon to brown slip on exterior and interior; i-l. Dalma-related impressed sherds on greyish buff, unslipped ware.

Photographs from the Kani Shaie Archaeological Project.

12Dalma surface-manipulated ware describes a relatively wide variety of surface treatment and vessel shapes in the northern Zagros. As a general rule, the surface manipulation is dense, covering almost the entire exterior (except for the bottom), and irregularly spaced, although within the wide range of variation exceptions to these characteristics do occur (fig. 4f-4h). The most common vessel shape is a small globular pot, often with a slightly stepped shoulder but also commonly with a direct rim. On such vessels, the surface manipulation covers the entire exterior up to the small neck, leaving a narrow smooth band below the rim. Some of these vessels have lugs or handles. In the Zagros, these surface-manipulated vessels typically are red-slipped on both the exterior and interior. Therefore, with similar fabric and vessel shapes, they can be considered a subcategory of red-slipped ware. In the Trans-Tigridian region, however, the use of red slip on Dalma-related surface-manipulated sherds is only sporadically present, while types of surface manipulation and selected vessel shapes seem much more restricted (Henrickson 1986: 120; Alden et al. 2021). At Kani Shaie, a few impressed sherds have a pale grey to buff fabric (fig. 4i-4l) but they were found in the same contexts as Dalma surface-manipulated sherds that have traces of maroon to brown slip on the exterior and interior (fig. 4f-4h).

13Often, this surface-manipulated variant has blackened patches on the exterior, which suggests that they served as cooking vessels (Hamlin 1975: 118; Tonoike 2010: 32). The application of a textured exterior surface could have served to increase the grip of the vessel or possibly add a thermal quality (e.g. more heat-resistant; cooler on the outside allowing for the vessel to be touched). As with the plain and red-slipped wares, surface-manipulated ware continued to be produced into the following period. However, these later vessels might have a wider range of shapes (including bowls and basins) and the surface manipulation tends to be restricted to rows of finger impressions that are more spaced apart than the typical dense cover on Dalma-period vessels (see for example Henrickson 1983: fig. 49, 52-53). Two sherds from Kani Shaie from Late Chalcolithic 1 contexts fit this description and might attest to continued interaction between Zagros and Trans-Tigridian communities (fig. 5).

Fig. 5 – Sherds with small finger impressions from Late Chalcolithic 1 contexts at Kani Shaie.

Fig. 5 – Sherds with small finger impressions from Late Chalcolithic 1 contexts at Kani Shaie.

Photographs from the Kani Shaie Archaeological Project.

  • 5 At present, not a single excavation of Dalma occupation has been published in full. The referenced (...)

14Dalma painted ware is the most characteristic and defines the transition from the Early Chalcolithic to the following black-on-buff painted phase as defined at Seh Gabi and Pisdeli Tepe. Vessel shapes are most commonly hemispherical bowls and sometimes straight-sided bowls (fig. 1). Only rarely has paint been attested on closed vessels (e.g. Hamlin 1975: fig. 6d). The overall execution and design of Dalma painted decoration is remarkably homogeneous throughout the northern Zagros with an aesthetic based on the principles of dark red or maroon color on a white background. To achieve this affect, paint is typically applied on either a light buff exterior or on a white slip. The interiors of these vessels are always red-slipped, with the red slip occasionally applied on top of a white slip, as is the case of a painted Dalma sherd at Kani Shaie (fig. 4e). The painted designs consist of a dense coverage of the exterior with thick bands of paint creating either geometric shapes (zigzags; triangles; lozenges) or diagonal bands. Yet within this overarching tradition, localized variation with different preferences for specific geometric designs and the use of different ranges of red is prevalent (Bahranipoor 2021). Despite the lack of substantial datasets from stratigraphic sequences, chronological development within the Dalma tradition can also be discerned, especially at sites with long Chalcolithic sequences such as Godin Tepe (Henrickson 1983: 173-177) and Tepe Namashir (Saed Mucheshi et al. 2017; Zamani Dadaneh et al. 2021).5 Based on the XYZ sounding at Godin Tepe, Henrickson proposed at least three phases of development for Dalma decorated ware (Henrickson 1983: 173-174), but the evidence from Seh Gabi, which was excavated with better stratigraphic control than the XYZ sounding, does not fully support this reconstruction (Henrickson 1983: 174). Taken together, the general trend shows an initial phase in which Dalma painted wares dominated, while in a later phase the painted wares diminished and the surface-manipulated wares increased, which was also observed at Dalma Tepe (Hamlin 1975: 111). Considering the functional differences of both wares (open consumption vessels versus closed cooking pots), it would be incorrect to assume that these trends are directly correlated. Rather, it might be more accurate to describe the observed trend as a gradual reduction in Dalma painted wares in the gradual transition to the subsequent Ubaid-related black-on-buff tradition and an increase in plain, red-slipped, and surface-manipulated wares as undecorated wares became more dominant widely throughout Greater Mesopotamia by the middle of the 5th millennium BCE.

15At Seh Gabi, the earliest level of Dalma occupation contained a bichrome variant of Dalma painted ware (Young and Levine 1974: fig. 9; Henrickson 1983: 200). Since no bichrome painted ware has so far been found in the northern Zagros, this might be a local variant. On the other hand, as it only occurs in the lowest level, it is possible that this bichrome variant is part of a transitional phase from the Late Neolithic when polychrome painted J ware, related to the Mesopotamian Halaf tradition, was in use in the central Zagros (Levine and McDonald 1977). If this proves to be true and if such early bichrome Dalma variants are absent in the northern Zagros, this might point to the central Zagros as a source of origin for the Dalma tradition.

16The end of the Dalma period and the transition to the black-on-buff painted styles of Seh Gabi and Pisdeli is equally poorly documented. At Tepe Namashir, this transition might be visible in phase IV where Dalma surface-manipulated sherds and few Dalma painted sherds co-occur with Ubaid painted sherds and a black-on-buff variant that is characterized by horizontal lines and registers, including horizontal reserved zigzags and rows of reserved lozenges (Saed Mucheshi et al. 2017: fig. 11; Zamani Dadaneh et al. 2021: fig. 14). This transition might also be visible in period IIIa at Lavin Tepe (Nobari et al. 2012: fig. 8) and at Tepe Gheshlagh (Sharifi and Motarjem 2018: fig. 12).

17In addition to decoration and surface treatment, the Dalma pottery tradition can also be defined as a functional assemblage. The full range of vessel shapes show a predominance of small consumption vessels and cooking pots (Dalma surface-manipulated ware; plain and red-slipped globular bowls; lugged pots). This indicates an emphasis on individual consumption and small-scale, domestic food preparation. Larger trays and basins could have been used for household food serving or different forms of food preparation. Publications of Dalma pottery, limited as they may be, lack any larger storage jars or large serving bowls that are characteristic of the Halaf and Ubaid assemblages in Mesopotamia. Even in the western central Zagros, contemporary occupation at Tepe Siahbid and Chogha Maran have clearly different functional assemblages with large pots, serving bowls, and large jars (Henrickson 1985a: figs. 13-15; Renette et al. 2021b). So far, there is no evidence of special depositional events or momentary accumulation of food and consumption vessels. Rather, the Dalma assemblage is fully integrated within daily life and household activities of small communities. Considering the variety of designs and high percentage of decorated vessels within Dalma assemblages, this indicates that Dalma pottery was mainly used in the context of frequent, yet small-scale food production and communal consumption with individual containers.

Architecture

  • 6 Insufficiently detailed plans or absence of plans in those short reports prevent a compilation. I r (...)
  • 7 Hamlin reports that walls at Dalma Tepe were constructed with chineh (pisé) rather than mudbricks ( (...)

18Dalma settlements have so far only been explored in small-scale excavations. Still, published evidence allows the preliminary identification of a shared architectural practice throughout the northern and central Zagros.6 Architectural remains of the Dalma period have been documented mainly at Dalma Tepe (Hamlin 1975: 113-115, fig. 3) and Nadali Beig (Bahranipoor 2016, 2018). Additional evidence comes from small soundings into Dalma-period levels at Seh Gabi Mound B (Henrickson 1983: 156-161), Lavin Tepe (Nobari et al. 2012), and Tepe Gheshlagh (Sharifi 2020). At all these sites, the settlement appears to consist of rectilinear, mudbrick (or mud slab) buildings7 with multiple small, rectangular rooms divided by large open spaces. These architectural units contain living spaces that are carefully maintained, frequently cleaned out, and have replastered floors, as well as trash-littered utility spaces with large bins, platforms, and fire installations. These buildings are regularly rebuilt, possibly on the same plan and using the bottom stubs of previous walls. At Lavin Tepe, Tepe Gheshlagh, and possibly Tepe Baghi, walls were at least occasionally built on stone foundations.

19Considering the size of Dalma-period sites, which are always smaller than one hectare, and the spatially divided buildings, these settlements can be characterized as small villages with only a few households. This settlement pattern is a continuation of the previous Neolithic period. At the 6th millennium BCE site of Hajji Firuz, the settlement consists of isolated and small square to rectangular domestic units that are internally divided into a carefully maintained living space and a utility room where trash built up during its use (Voigt 1976: 108-117, 1983: 31-69). In contrast, at Seh Gabi Mound C, which might be slightly later than Hajji Firuz but still pre-dates the Dalma period, small-scale excavations identified two buildings separated by an alleyway and consisting of multiple rectangular rooms, similar to later Dalma architecture (McDonald 1979: 317-358). This limited evidence suggests a development of a long architectural tradition in the Zagros with rectilinear, mudbrick (or mud slab) architecture consisting of free-standing units that have internal divisions into clean living areas and trash-filled utility spaces with bins and fire installations. These buildings often have semi-circular enclosures on their exterior while in the open spaces there are mud, cobblestone, or sherd pavements for different activities. While the earliest architecture at Hajji Firuz consists of very small buildings with only two rooms, the buildings became larger by the Dalma period, while still adhering to the same organizational layout and functional organization of spaces as well as maintaining open areas in the settlement. By the middle of the 5th millennium BCE, when black-on-buff painted ceramic traditions replaced the Dalma ceramic production, settlements appear to have become much denser with even larger architectural complexes, as documented at Seh Gabi (Young and Levine 1974).

20At the northernmost extent of the Dalma distribution in Nakhchivan, earlier Neolithic architecture differs distinctly with mainly small, circular constructions, which have also been documented at other Neolithic sites in the southern Caucasus. However, the Dalma settlement at Nakhchivan Tepe introduces similar rectilinear architecture as documented throughout the northern and central Zagros (Bahseliyev 2020, 2021).

Burials

21Evidence for Dalma burial practices is rare. Only at Dalma Tepe were burials of this period documented (Hamlin 1975: 115). There, excavators found fourteen jar burials that contained tightly contracted single infants. These burials were found throughout the excavation area in both outside spaces and rooms. This practice is a departure from previous Neolithic evidence from Hajji Firuz where young children were buried beneath the floor of utility rooms and occasionally ossuary burials were found beneath the floor of living spaces. On the other hand, the practice of burying infants in ceramic vessels within the settlement was widespread during the 5th millennium BCE (Hole 1989; Chiocchetti 2007; Bacvarov 2008; Brereton 2016: 203).

Other finds

  • 8 Again, short publications of this material often include only a few items and/or low-resolution pho (...)

22As with architecture, the lack of larger excavations and detailed publications of the full complement of material culture prevents a thorough discussion of Dalma material culture beyond the ceramic production.8 However, several object types are repeatedly reported from sites with Dalma occupation, some of which might be chronologically and culturally specific to the northern Zagros in the early 5th millennium BCE.

23A common object type, as at many Chalcolithic sites throughout southwest Asia, are spindle whorls. Dalma spindle whorls are not especially distinct from neighboring regions, although a thorough cross-regional typology of this object category would be worthwhile to compile. Most, if not all published spindle whorls from Dalma sites are of the biconical type and they are commonly made of baked clay, although stone ones have also been reported (Solecki and Solecki 1973: fig. 2.g; Young and Levine 1974: fig. 15.14-16; Nobari et al. 2012: figs. 5.5, 6.2; Balmaki 2017: fig. 15; Sharifi 2020: figs. 42-44).

24Another very common object type at Dalma sites is a worked bone awl (Solecki and Solecki 1973: 106; Young and Levine 1974: fig. 14.2; Hamlin 1975: 116, pl. 1a-1b; Nobari et al. 2012: fig. 5.3; Sharifi 2020: figs. 102-105). These are typically broken on one end and shaped into a long, fine point on the other. Many, or perhaps all, are at least partially polished. No detailed discussion of the type of bones or the type of animals that were used is currently available, but there appears to be a significant degree of variety suggesting that whichever bone that was large enough could be used. It is not possible at present to determine a chronological range for the production of such tools, but of course it is likely that they are not restricted to the Dalma period, nor are they restricted to the Zagros region as similar bone tools have been found at Neolithic to Chalcolithic sites in northern Mesopotamia, e.g. at Jarmo (Watson 1983a: figs. 143, 145.3-6) and Banahilk (Watson 1983b: figs. 208.12-15, 219.2-4). Nevertheless, they appear to be very common at Dalma sites and are often distinct enough to have been noted by the excavators in their short reports.

  • 9 Interestingly, no such rings have been reported from Dalma Tepe, but they might not have been inclu (...)

25An object type that seems to be closely associated with Dalma-period occupation is a small ring, with a diameter ranging between 1.5-3 cm, made from a soft stone such as chlorite or baked clay (Solecki and Solecki 1973: fig. 2f; Young and Levine 1974: fig. 15.21; Nobari et al. 2012: fig. 5.5; Saed Mucheshi et al. 2017: fig. 15.10; Sharifi 2020: figs. 98-100).9 The function of such rings remains unclear, but it is tempting to interpret them as ornamental, either attached to clothing or on the body. Similar rings might be attested also at sites in Iraqi Kurdistan, e.g. at Karim Shahir (Braidwood and Howe 1960: pl. 23.15-16; Howe 1983: fig. 10.12-23) and Jarmo (Moholy-Nagy 1983: fig. 135).

26Finally, as is to be expected, Dalma sites typically contain a range of ground stone objects (Young and Levine 1974: 4; Hamlin 1975: 116; Nobari et al. 2012: fig. 5.3; Zamani Dadaneh et al. 2021: fig. 15) and chipped stone tools (Solecki and Solecki 1973: 106; Hamlin 1975: 116; Nobari et al. 2012: fig. 5.6; Zamani Dadaneh et al. 2021: fig. 12). At several Dalma sites throughout the northern Zagros, a large amount of obsidian tools has been reported in addition to the range of locally sourced lithic tools. That this is not merely a function of geographical proximity to obsidian sources is shown by the equally high percentage of obsidian at Tepe Gheshlagh, which is located in the southeastern zone of the Dalma region at some distance from the main sources in eastern Anatolia and the southern Caucasus (Sharifi 2020: 302-309).

Chronology of Dalma

27The chronology of the Dalma archaeological culture relies on relative dating within stratigraphic sequences and the occasional association with Ubaid pottery, either within the Zagros or in the Trans-Tigridian region. In the southern Lake Urmia region, the relative chronology of Dalma material culture was initially established as occurring during a long period between the Neolithic Hajji Firuz material, which is contemporary with Hassuna and Samarra in northern Mesopotamia (Voigt 1983: 351-355), and Pisdeli material, which consists of a black-on-white pottery production that is stylistically related to late Ubaid pottery in northern Mesopotamia as well as a black-on-red production that is related to Late Chalcolithic 1 material in northern Mesopotamia and Transitional Chalcolithic pottery from northern Iran (Henrickson 1986: 121-122; Abedi et al. 2015; Renette and Mohammadi Ghasrian 2020: 113-115). In the central Zagros, Dalma occupation was defined at Seh Gabi as a period between the Late Neolithic to Early Chalcolithic Shahnabad period (Godin XI), which is contemporary with the late Halaf of northern Mesopotamia, and the black-on-buff, late Ubaid-related Seh Gabi tradition (Godin IX; Henrickson 1985a: 69-70; Levine and Young 1987; Renette and Mohammadi Ghasrian 2020: 115-116).

  • 10 See Renette and Mohammadi Ghasrian 2020 for an initial attempt to bring the Zagros Chalcolithic chr (...)
  • 11 To further confuse matters, early radiocarbon dates from the key sequences have wide margins of err (...)

28However, since the 1970s when these correlations were established, the ceramic chronology of Mesopotamia has become much better defined, yet the chronology of these Zagros Chalcolithic periods has not been fully updated.10 Still, as the collection of papers in this volume demonstrates, the definition of Ubaid and Late Chalcolithic 1 in Greater Mesopotamia remains a work-in-progress. As a result, the chronological position of the black-on-buff/white pottery production (Pisdeli and Seh Gabi styles) in the Zagros in relation to Mesopotamia has become confused.11 When Henrickson conducted her detailed analysis of stylistic relationships between Zagros and Mesopotamian Chalcolithic painted pottery (Henrickson 1986), the regional differences in the transition from painted Ubaid to plain Late Chalcolithic pottery production had not yet been fully appreciated. It is now clear, however, that black-on-buff painted pottery continued to be produced in the southern Zagros and southwestern Iran for a much longer period than in northern Mesopotamia, probably until the end of the 5th millennium BCE (Voigt and Dyson 1992: 132; Weeks et al. 2010; Butterlin 2018: 141, 198). Reading Henrickson’s work today gives the wrong impression of a strict contemporaneity between the Zagros black-on-buff/white traditions of Pisdeli and Seh Gabi, and the late Ubaid of northern Mesopotamia based on general stylistic similarities. It is possible, even likely, that there is chronological overlap between the final phase of painted late Ubaid production in northern Mesopotamia and the initial adoption of black-on-buff/white painted styles in the northern and central Zagros. But they are not parallel traditions with the same lifespan, as is clear by the repeated observation of late Ubaid sherds at Dalma sites and Dalma sherds within late Ubaid contexts. In a recent reassessment of the ceramic chronology of the Zagros Chalcolithic traditions, I have argued based on the available radiocarbon dates and recently obtained stratified evidence from various sites in western Iran that the black-on-buff/white Pisdeli and Seh Gabi styles are mainly contemporary with the Late Chalcolithic 1 period in Greater Mesopotamia and were produced until the end of the 5th millennium BCE, overlapping with the first half of the Late Chalcolithic 2 period (Renette and Mohammadi Ghasrian 2020: fig. 5).

  • 12 The very few radiocarbon dates from the early excavations at Dalma Tepe and Seh Gabi (summarized in (...)
  • 13 Similarly, Neolithic and early Bakun pottery in southern Iran also occasionally shares the bold geo (...)
  • 14 At Tell Hassan, these few sherds combine impressions with paint, which is generally not attested in (...)

29While we await new, robust radiocarbon dates from well-stratified contexts, it is worth repeating the main facts that allow a general outline of the chronology of the Dalma period.12 First, Dalma pottery was only produced after the Late Neolithic Zagros styles of Hajji Firuz, Shahnabad, and so-called J ware had gone out of use. Especially the J ware material is of importance as it includes polychrome pottery that is closely related to late Halaf and Halaf-Ubaid-Transitional (HUT) pottery (Sharp and Kaercher 2018; Renette et al. 2021b). The occurrence of bichrome Dalma painted pottery in the earliest level at Seh Gabi and superficial stylistic parallels with large zigzag and filled triangle motifs in Mesopotamian late Halaf and southern Zagros Archaic Susiana pottery might suggest that Dalma developed in tandem with those painted pottery traditions through a process of mutual influences, although from the beginning it was a distinct production.13 The late Halaf site Tell Hassan in the Hamrin valley, where a couple of vessels carry a bold geometric design painted in dark red on a white slip, offers a particularly interesting case that illustrates the possible cross-regional context within which the Dalma ceramic tradition originated (Fiorina 1987: fig. 5e; Chiocchetti and Fornaris 2013: 66, 105, cat. no 22;). Within the same contexts at Tell Hassan, excavators also found a few sherds that are densely covered with semi-lunar impressions and a red wash, which is reminiscent of Dalma surface-manipulated ware. However, these vessels have shapes and fabrics that are not attested within the Dalma tradition and should therefore not be identified with the Dalma label.14

30Second, Dalma pottery was produced before the black-on-buff/white Zagros styles, which in turn are only replaced by Godin VII plain wares that can be dated to the second half of the Late Chalcolithic 2 period, beginning ca. 4000 BCE (Renette and Mohammadi Ghasrian 2020). Therefore, the Dalma period spans an unknown time period between the Late Neolithic of the late 6th millennium and the Late Chalcolithic 1 of the middle of the 5th millennium.

  • 15 At Surezha, Dalma wares are reported mainly from Late Chalcolithic 1 contexts (Alden et al. 2021), (...)

31Third, Dalma pottery co-occurs with late Ubaid pottery, but is only rarely attested in Late Chalcolithic 1 contexts in the Trans-Tigridian region.15 At Kani Shaie, present evidence shows a co-occurrence of Dalma pottery with painted late Ubaid pottery, but it is no longer present in Late Chalcolithic 1 contexts when Ubaid painted pottery had become a rarity in the local assemblage (Renette et al. 2021a: fig. 6).

32In sum, the Dalma tradition is broadly contemporary with the late Ubaid (Ubaid 3-4) even if its origins and end can only vaguely be outlined and its origins might be located during the Halaf-Ubaid-Transitional period. Based on the absolute chronology of the Mesopotamian traditions, at the very least it is clear that the Dalma tradition emerged during the final centuries of the 6th millennium BCE and that it was produced at least through the first quarter and possibly until the middle of the 5th millennium BCE.

  • 16 Admittedly, there are more early sites excavated in the Hamrin valley, so this might be a bias in o (...)

33For now, the earliest occurrence of Dalma painted pottery appears to come from the eastern central Zagros, and not from the northern type-site Dalma Tepe, considering the stratified development of a Dalma sequence at Seh Gabi and Godin Tepe. This might be further confirmed by early absolute dates retrieved through thermoluminescence dating at Tepe Gheshlagh, which produced dates between 5500-4800 BCE, albeit with large margins of error (Sharifi and Motarjem 2018: 88). At Tepe Gheshlagh, the earliest Dalma assemblage consists mainly of painted pottery with a relatively lower percentage of surface-manipulated ware, which matches the development observed at both Dalma Tepe and Seh Gabi/Godin Tepe. Also at Tepe Gheshlagh, the earliest Dalma assemblage at the site includes sherds of husking trays, which are generally associated with Neolithic communities of the 6th millennium BCE (Sharifi and Motarjem 2018: 91, fig. 16). Finally, the earliest finds of Dalma or Dalma-related pottery, including Dalma painted pottery, in the Trans-Tigridian region come from the Hamrin valley, which is more likely to have reached the area via the Sirwan/Diyala river and mountain passes that lead into the central Zagros rather than the distant lake Urmia region.16 Recent radiocarbon dates from late Ubaid to early Late Chalcolithic 1 contexts with Dalma surface-manipulated ware at Surezha in the Erbil Plain and Kani Shaie near Sulaymaniyah cluster around 4900-4800 BCE (Stein and Alizadeh 2014). If Dalma surface-manipulated ware is a later development in the Dalma sequence, then this date range offers additional support for an origin of Dalma in the last centuries of the 6th millennium and a lifespan that ends before the middle of the 5th millennium BCE.

Regional distribution of Dalma

  • 17 Undoubtedly more sites with Dalma occupation have been mapped by Iranian archaeologists in the past (...)

34New fieldwork projects in the past two decades have identified Dalma occupation. Several Iranian projects have documented Dalma or Dalma-related pottery in small-scale excavations and surveys throughout the northern Zagros (fig. 2).17 While most of these projects focus on mapping sites and obtaining a stratigraphic sequence rather than exploring ancient settlements in detail with horizontal exposures, these Iranian projects have filled out the map of the Chalcolithic in the Zagros resulting in a much-improved understanding of the limits of Dalma distribution. However, the eastern flanks of the Zagros Mountains as well as the region east of Lake Urmia remain poorly documented. Dalma pottery has been reported from the Sojas Rud region just west of Zanjan at the sites of Tepe Pirgorgar (Swiny 1975: 81) and Soha Chai (Rahimi Sorkhani and Eslami 2018), but descriptions and photographs of the fabrics of painted sherds show dark paint on a red background and linear designs rather than solid bands, which differs from Dalma pottery as defined in the Zagros. Therefore, it remains unclear whether Dalma sherds at these sites formed the dominant assemblage or merely represent interaction parallel with the presence of Dalma pottery in the Trans-Tigridian region.

  • 18 Similar sherds from Yanik Tepe are also described as having dark paint on a red to brown burnished (...)

35The northern extent of Dalma also remains to be resolved in a satisfactory manner. At Nakhchivan Tepe in the Nakhchivan region of Azerbaijan, excavation of Early Chalcolithic levels documented an assemblage with a high percentage of Dalma painted and surface-manipulated wares, as well as other artifacts and architecture, that are virtually indistinguishable from the northern Zagros region (Bahseliyev 2019, 2020, 2021; Orange et al. 2021). While the full range of material at the site, as well as ratios of pottery types, still await detailed publication, evidence from Nakhchivan Tepe made available so far does indicate that this site might represent the furthest northern spread of the full assemblage of the Dalma archaeological culture. Dalma pottery has also been reported from the nearby site of Kul Tepe on the Iranian side of the border with Nakhchivan, but the pottery that has been published (which lacks Dalma surface-manipulated ware) slightly postdates Dalma based on the associated radiocarbon dates that range between 4500-4400 BCE and fits better with the Transitional Chalcolithic northern Iranian material (Abedi et al. 2014b, 2015).18 Beyond the Nakhchivan region, only vessels with a similar surface treatment as Dalma surface-manipulated wares are attested in the southern Caucasus (Narimanov 1987; Chataigner et al. 2010). Based on available published information, sherds of this type in this northern region often differ in fabric or lack the application of a slip. They could easily reflect a similar or shared production based on the common principle of applying texture to a vessel for functional purposes (Chataigner et al. 2010: 381).

  • 19 In 2014, G. Shirzadeh and G. Kaka excavated two small soundings at Tepe Qaleh-ye Sarsakhti, but the (...)

36At the southern end, low-intensity surveys of Nehavand, Borujerd, and Khorramabad only found occasional sherds of Dalma painted or surface-manipulated wares (Hole 2007; Young 1966). Few possible Dalma painted sherds occur at Tepe Giyan in phase VB within contexts defined by black-on-buff painted Ubaid-related pottery (Contenau and Ghirshman 1935: pl. 40-45; Goff 1971: 137). Similarly, recent soundings at the site of Tepe Qaleh-ye Sarsakhti, located east of Borujerd, identified Dalma painted sherds within a black-on-buff assemblage, but lacking Dalma surface-manipulated wares (Abedi et al. 2014a).19 Survey in the highland valleys of Luristan similarly noted an absence of Dalma pottery, with Dalma surface-manipulated sherds only present in the northernmost area bordering the Kermanshah-Harsin-Kangavar region (Goff 1971: 139).

37In sum, based on available published evidence, the Kangavar Plain forms the southeastern-most extent of the spread of Dalma material culture. Interestingly, while Dalma surface-manipulated ware occurs in small amounts at sites to the west (Mahidasht, Hamrin, northern Trans-Tigridian region) and north (southern Caucasus), only few Dalma painted sherds and almost no surface-manipulated sherds are found at sites to the south (Luristan, Nehavand, and Borujerd). It is important to note that occurrences of Dalma surface-manipulated ware and Dalma painted ware in neighboring regions stand out within otherwise local assemblages with different decorated ceramic traditions. The boundary of the Dalma archaeological culture—i.e. sites with assemblages that consist of at least 90% Dalma pottery and other aspects of Dalma material culture—is clearly identifiable where enough fieldwork has taken place. As shown in the map of fig. 2, the borders between the western and southern extent of the Dalma archaeological culture are in fact strongly marked with Dalma sites along one side of the border and different Early Chalcolithic sites with only small amounts of Dalma pottery in valleys immediately outside the border. As argued below, such a distinct demarcation, maintained for centuries despite evidence for sustained interaction, strongly suggests deliberate choices by the local communities in their adoption of ceramic styles that are best explained as choices of identity markers.

  • 20 . – For a discussion of the formation of such inland, incised valleys and plains, see e.g. Boyd et  (...)

38This marked distribution requires further discussion of geographical features. The Dalma heartland encompasses a series of relatively small, incised, colluvial plains,20 bounded by mountain ridges, in a piedmont zone east of the highest peaks of the northern Zagros (the Kuh-i Sefid or Chaîne Magistrale) and the Armenian Highlands (e.g. plains around Lake Urmia; Nakhchivan plain; Hamadan plain) with a westward penetration into a few highland valleys (e.g. upper Little Zab; Kangavar; fig. 2). The Kuh-i Sefid functioned as a cultural boundary separating the western and eastern Zagros. To the east, Dalma did not spread into the larger plains of the central Iranian Plateau or eastern Azerbaijan where different Chalcolithic traditions emerged by the end of the 6th millennium BCE. As such, the Dalma region separated the northern Iranian black-on-red ceramic tradition from the black-on-buff wares of northern Mesopotamia. At the same time, other highland communities to the west of the Kuh-i Sefid and in the southern Zagros, which were naturally connected with the Mesopotamian lowlands through a series of passes and a strong northwest-southeast orientation of routes connecting valleys, participated in the black-on-buff tradition, which did not spread beyond the highest ranges of the southern Zagros during this period.

Interpreting Dalma

  • 21 Neolithic communities certainly maintained regular interaction outside their immediate territory as (...)

39The regional distribution of a relatively homogeneous Dalma assemblage throughout a large region of highland valleys has intrigued archaeologists since its initial discovery. It presents the first instance of an overarching Zagros decorated pottery tradition that replaces highly localized ceramic traditions of somewhat isolated highland communities during the Neolithic.21 This spread of Dalma and its endurance over several centuries raises questions of how these communities maintained regular interaction throughout a landscape that poses significant challenges for long-distance movement and communication. At the same time, this Dalma archaeological culture has a clear border and did not spread into the western central Zagros or the southern Zagros. Yet this does not mean that Dalma communities were cut off from their neighbors considering the occurrence of small amounts of clearly Dalma-related pottery beyond the Dalma territory and the occasional foreign ceramic vessels within Dalma contexts in addition to the presence of non-locally available materials such as obsidian.

40The question of how Dalma spread throughout the Zagros has been the main focus of investigations into the Dalma archaeological culture. Far less attention has been devoted to the distinctive aesthetic character of the Dalma ceramic tradition, the technological differences of Dalma pottery production in comparison to neighboring Chalcolithic societies, or functional aspects of the assemblage. Three explanatory models have been put forth to explain the distribution of Dalma pottery: an exchange network with a few pottery producing centers, which can be rejected based on the evidence for highly localized microvariation in production methods (Henrickson 1986: 117; Henrickson and Vitali 1987: 42-43; Tonoike 2010, 2012: 73-74, Buehlman-Barbeau 2020: 107-108); Dalma pottery as markers of an ethnic group (Henrickson 1986: 118-120); and small groups of pastoral nomads who seasonally migrated between dispersed villages serving as middlemen in the distribution of goods such as obsidian and ceramic containers (Henrickson 1985b, 1986: 119; Hole 1987, 2011; Abdi 2003; Chataigner et al. 2010; Tonoike 2010, 2012: 76; Abedi et al. 2015: 332; Alden et al. 2021: 22). Henrickson also argued that the local production of small amounts of Dalma-related, yet not identical, surface-manipulated vessels in the western central Zagros and the Trans-Tigridian region could reflect the intercultural transmission of a concept that fulfilled a specific function, which was not met by Ubaid vessel types (Henrickson 1986: 120; Henrickson and Vitali 1987: 44).

41Except for the scenario of distribution by trade from a few workshops, none of the proposed scenarios can at present be satisfactorily accepted or rejected (Alden et al. 2021: 22). Nevertheless, a general preference for distribution by transhumant groups has emerged in the literature, both for the distribution of Dalma within the Zagros (e.g. Tonoike 2010, 2012) and outside the Dalma heartland. Such a scenario requires an early emergence of medium- to long-range pastoral nomadism by specialized households who migrated between summer pasture in highland valleys and winter pastures near Lake Urmia or in the Trans-Tigridian region. However, while many attempts have been made to identify Neolithic or Chalcolithic origins of such ethnographically identified practices in western Iran, real evidence remains lacking (e.g. Hole 1974, 1978; Gilbert 1983; Henrickson 1985b, 1989; Haerinck 1987; Zagarell 1989; Abdi et al. 2002; Abdi 2003; Alizadeh et al. 2004; Alizadeh 2006, 2010; Daujat et al. 2016). All too often, these studies suffer from an overreliance on ethnographic studies of pastoral nomad groups in western Iran during recent history that is projected backward in the distant past without fully considering particular historical conditions, the economic and sociopolitical contexts upon which highly specialized pastoral nomadism depends (Khazanov 1994, 2009), and the lack of direct evidence for prehistoric long-range mobile groups. Alternative interpretations of the archaeological record that do not require invoking unattested pastoral nomads are readily available. Highland societies have at their disposal a wide range of possible agropastoral adaptive strategies beyond the economically specialized practice of large groups of people seasonally migrating long distances to maximize animal production (Potts 2014; Hammer and Arbuckle 2017). Village-based pastoralism and short-distance movements of herds by a few individuals when needed are still the best fit for the currently available archaeological evidence from Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Bronze Age settlements in the Zagros region.

42Considering such criticisms, small amounts of Dalma and Dalma-related vessels at distant sites in the Trans-Tigridian region are unlikely to have been produced by pastoral nomads on long-distance seasonal migrations. If such groups were present in the Trans-Tigridian region, producing their own Dalma pottery at camp sites, we could expect intensive survey projects in past years in the Erbil Plain, the Rania and Peshdar Plains, the Shahrizor Plain, and along the Sirwan/Diyala River to detect small ephemeral sites with a higher-than-usual amount of Dalma pottery (Alden et al. 2021: 22), but no such material or sites have yet been reported. The question also arises as to why mainly Dalma surface-manipulated pottery occurs outside the core Dalma territory, often with much less variation in vessel shapes and execution of surface treatment, unlike Dalma painted or red-slipped ware that is at present rarely attested. Finally, a hypothetical scenario in which migrating groups are responsible for small occurrences of Dalma pottery outside the Zagros highlands does not provide an explanation for the remarkably longlasting separation between the distinct Dalma assemblage and the Ubaid and Ubaid-related pottery production of the Trans-Tigridian region and the central western Zagros. Why was there not more mutual cultural influence if there were regular long-distance migrations and possible kin relations between Dalma and northern Ubaid communities?

Dalma as an incipient mountain identity

43Reviving Henrickson’s underexplored hypothesis that Dalma’s morphological and stylistic uniformity could be the marker of an ethnic identity, I propose that this archaeological culture at least reflects an intention by northern Zagros highland communities to distinguish themselves from expanding cultural practices in both the Mesopotamian lowlands and the Iranian Plateau. While this might not meet the criteria for an ethnic identity, which in any case would be difficult to demonstrate in this prehistoric context, it does indicate a shared sense of awareness of difference among these highland communities who inhabited a zone of mountainous plains and valleys that were geographically bounded to the west by the high peaks of the northern Zagros, and geographically distinct from the larger plains of the central Iranian Plateau and eastern Azerbaijan. In the previous Neolithic period and again in several later periods, the fragmented landscape of the Zagros Mountains presented physical barriers that resulted in highly localized and varied material cultures. In contrast, the coherent Dalma assemblage of pottery, lithics, bone tools, stone rings, and settlement patterns shows a remarkable integration of northern Zagros communities through shared cultural practices that were maintained through regular interaction and exchange. Beyond the Zagros, Dalma communities were connected within a broader network that spanned northern Mesopotamia, the southern Caucasus, and the Iranian Plateau, which demonstrates that the distinctiveness of the Dalma archaeological culture is not a reflection of cultural isolation.

44Dalma painted ware, which is reserved almost exclusively for individual consumption vessels, serves as an obvious visual marker of this culture’s distinctiveness. As such, Dalma communities produced pottery and possibly other perishable goods that were deliberately different from the widespread black-on-buff pottery traditions, which were dominant across Mesopotamia, the western central Zagros, the Susiana, and the southern Zagros, as well as the black-on-red Transitional Chalcolithic pottery production of the Iranian Plateau. Not only was the widespread black-on-buff aesthetic rejected, but also in technological practices and vessel shapes is there no noticeable influence, which means that the functional ceramic assemblage was different and by extension cooking and commensality practices as well. In the Early Chalcolithic world where numerous communities from the edge of the eastern Mediterranean to southern Iran underwent parallel developments of increasing social complexity that found their expression in a shared social identity visible in similar ceramic aesthetic, architectural forms, burial traditions, craft production, administrative practices, and possibly personal adornments and body alterations, albeit with distinct local variations on this general theme (Karsgaard 2010; Stein 2010), Dalma communities rejected the associated forms of social organization, which were becoming increasingly based on larger-scale communities with growing inequalities in access to resources and political decision making. Instead, Dalma settlements continued Neolithic lifeways consisting of small hamlets with few or any signs of social differentiation, craft specialization, and administrative organization. This reflects a continuity of egalitarian communities that were organized on the household-level while neighboring societies were growing and experimenting with forms of social competition, collective labor organization, and possibly proto-polity formation. These innovative Chalcolithic societal developments were not restricted to specific environmental zones as is evident from parallel trajectories with similar, yet different adoptions of black-on-buff painted pottery styles in the highlands of the central western Zagros and the southern Zagros (Weeks et al. 2010). Therefore, Dalma communities appear to have consciously and deliberately rejected these new developments that were taking place all around them.

45The occasional occurrence of Dalma surface-manipulated and to a lesser degree painted sherds in the Trans-Tigridian region and the southern Caucasus within very different ceramic assemblages does not necessarily present a difficult archaeological conundrum, although, in this author’s opinion, current interpretations are deficient to explain the available data. The reliance on a model of long-distance pastoral migration seems to stem from a dichotomous view of the ancient world between sedentary and nomadic communities that minimizes the full range of human mobility of individuals, households, and communities. Movement of people does not require the invocation of nomadism or large-scale migration. Individuals or households could have moved for many different purposes, such as local crop failure, disease, natural disaster, social conflict, or seeking new opportunities elsewhere, resulting in a regular cross-cultural translocation of few individuals. Maintaining social connections with neighboring communities, especially those who inhabit different ecological zones with different resources, would have required mechanisms for frequent interaction and possibly also the establishment of kinship relations, for example through exchange of marriage partners (Gosselain 1998, 2001; Gelbert 1999; although matrimonial networks are only one mechanism through which cultural transmission can occur: Gosselain 2008: 176). In such a scenario, the integration of foreign individuals into a community would not necessarily be immediately visible in the material culture as newcomers could rapidly assimilate and adopt the locally available utensils. Regardless, ceramics might not necessarily have been the primary markers of identity that foreign individuals would have chosen as a personal expression if they so desired. Foreign individuals could have continued to express their cultural origins, if they chose, through perishable clothes or body markers, or even through domestic cooking practices or a range of individual cultural behavior that is difficult to detect in the archaeological record. However, while the cultural context of an Ubaid community provided a full spectrum of tools and pottery, including painted vessels, the specific function of Dalma surface-manipulated ware might not have been easy to replace, especially if it was used for cooking particular recipes (Henrickson and Vitali 1987: 44). As these individuals integrated into Ubaid communities, adopting local pottery, they may still have occasionally produced a few Dalma vessels for specific purposes that could not be fulfilled by the functional assemblage of the host community. It is in this process that we can see hybridity in ceramic production with locally produced vessels that are either morphologically identical to those in the northern Zagros or a range of vessels produced with clay recipes and vessel finishing that is adopted from the communities of practice within which individuals were adopted.

46In a process of horizontal cultural transmission between Zagros Dalma communities and Mesopotamian Ubaid communities, or with regular interaction maintained by significantly large mobile groups migrating between the Zagros highlands and the Mesopotamian lowlands, we might expect a degree of mutual adoption of cultural practices and production. In such a context, Dalma surface manipulated ware could have been adopted by Ubaid communities east of the Tigris River as a functionally useful vessel. However, that this was not the case is evident by the observation that this type of vessel was not integrated within Ubaid ceramic assemblages or otherwise further adapted within the local cultural practices. The small amounts of Dalma surface manipulated vessels within Trans-Tigridian Ubaid contexts and their continued distinctive morphology through several centuries of intercultural engagement is instead indicative of repeated introduction of such vessels without wider community adoption of their production and consumption. In other words, the current data better fits a model of occasional translocation of individuals crossing the cultural boundary between Dalma and Ubaid, producing some pottery ad hoc as needed, rather than regular migration of larger groups of people or horizontal cultural transmission.

  • 22 In order to truly investigate the expression of salient identities within these Chalcolithic cultur (...)

47Considering this absence of cultural transmission or hybridization in the borderlands between the northern Zagros mountain valleys and their neighbors in the Trans-Tigridian hilly flanks and plains, the maintenance of a cultural border for several centuries is meaningful. The cultural divide is visible in ceramic technology, aesthetic choices, and functional assemblages, which are maintained despite frequent interaction and possibly a degree of social integration, e.g. through intermarriage. We might speculate that such a divide was also expressed in other ways that are not archaeologically visible. A maximalist perspective might argue that these are archaeological markers of an ethnic divide, but this is difficult to identify in prehistoric datasets and it has been long established that we should resist to equate pots with peoples, although identities certainly were and continue to be expressed through material culture (Kramer 1977; Schortman 1989; Jones 1997).22 Both within and across the Dalma and Ubaid zones, different languages and other ethnic markers could have been common, we most likely will never know. Instead, I argue that at the very least the distinct Dalma-Ubaid divide reflects one aspect of identity. Since the Dalma tradition is highly restricted to a bounded highland zone and did not spread beyond a relatively limited geographical extent, while Ubaid and Ubaid-related black-on-buff wares, as well as associated cultural practices, spread widely (Carter and Philip 2010), I argue that the Dalma archaeological culture likely reflects a deliberate rejection of this in-origin lowland tradition, as well as the parallel Chalcolithic developments in the large plains of the Iranian Plateau (Helwing 2013). As such, we might see here the first instance of mountain communities asserting their independence from powerful societal changes that originated in the lowlands, especially power structures that created increasing inequality of access to resources, which is counter to traditional strategies of mountain communities based in cooperation and egalitarianism.

Conclusion

48With new fieldwork in both western Iran and Iraqi Kurdistan, the discovery of Dalma pottery has resulted in a resurgence of scholarly interest into its distribution. Unfortunately, several factors have created some confusion about the nature of “Dalma”, questioning whether this constitutes a separate Chalcolithic tradition or is an archaeological construct of separate occasionally co-occurring pottery types. An overgeneralization of distinct Dalma pot types, especially surface-manipulated or impressed ware, has led to cases of misidentification. The synthesis presented in this article aims to demonstrate that Dalma does in fact constitute a coherent archaeological culture consisting of a functional ceramic assemblage that includes a painted style with a distinct aesthetic scheme, a set of repeatedly co-occuring artifact types, and a shared architectural tradition and settlement pattern, all of which together form the archaeological remains of culturally similar communities throughout the northern Zagros. While small amounts of Dalma surface-manipulated and painted sherds can be found outside the Dalma heartland of the northern Zagros, at Dalma sites they form a large component of the assemblage and they share distinct traits of surface treatment (red slipping), vessel shape, fabrics (heavily chaff-tempered, friable), and technological production with the local common plain and red-slipped wares. In other words, these pottery types are indigenous to the northern Zagros, even if their origins may have taken place during a period of intense sharing of ideas and practices with neighboring regions resulting in occasional superficial similarities of painted motifs or vessel surface treatments.

49Significant progress has been made over the years with microscopic and chemical analysis of Dalma and Dalma-related pottery. Such studies have convincingly and repeatedly established that the Dalma pottery tradition was consistently reproduced over a large region by non-specialist potters at a household level. Considering the lack of extensive excavations of Dalma settlements, it is a testament to these scholars’ diligence that we are able to make such a definitive statement. At the same time, we still are no closer to defining the mechanisms behind the spread of the Dalma tradition throughout the northern Zagros highland valleys and the interaction with Trans-Tigridian communities. INAA studies have shown that even at Trans-Tigridian sites Dalma pottery was made locally and that within the Zagros Mountains physical pottery vessels did not circulate outside the settlements. This observation has frequently been used to support a hypothesis that long-range transhumant groups facilitated the diffusion of the Dalma tradition and that they occasionally produced Dalma pottery during their seasonal migrations in the lowlands. However, if these studies would have identified evidence for the physical movement of pottery vessels between sites and regions, most likely the conclusion of the existence of long-range nomadic groups would have been the same, which of course means that this suggestion remains completely hypothetical and unproven.

50Rather than invoking anachronistic long-range, specialized nomads for which there is currently no actual evidence, I have proposed an alternative explanation that I argue fits the available evidence better by focusing on the remarkably distinctive nature of Dalma material culture in the broader context of the Early Chalcolithic. The fact that for several centuries Dalma communities remained small-scale and produced distinctive artifacts such as painted pottery and stone rings that could have been used for identity signaling, while neighboring societies in the Mesopotamian lowlands, the western and southern Zagros highlands, and the Iranian Plateau were adopting radically new forms of social organization accompanied by a widespread black-on-buff painted pottery style, indicates a deliberate choice. I argue then that Dalma communities rejected the social changes that took place around them and adhered to a longstanding way of life structured around small villages and a degree of mobility to exploit the resources of their mountainous territory. In order to maintain access to valued resources, such as obsidian, and possibly to secure support in times of crisis (risk management), I argue that Dalma communities maintained social ties with neighboring societies, possibly including exchange of marriage partners. The cultural borders were marked, yet permeable, so that many individual cases of migration to neighboring communities in either direction would have been possible over the centuries. Such a scenario can easily explain the occurrence of Dalma pottery within different cultural contexts and the occasional Ubaid vessel within a Dalma settlement. Hopefully as more data is generated, the different models proposed for these Early Chalcolithic societies can be evaluated with evidence rather than speculation. Regardless, the case of Dalma highlights that despite the powerful dynamics of major societal transformations during the Chalcolithic and widespread adoptions of similar cultural behavior, this remained a highly diverse world with a place for communities, households, and individuals to make their own choices in how to organize their lives on the local level.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Abdi K. 2003 – The early development of pastoralism in the Central Zagros mountains. Journal of World Prehistory 17: 395-448.

Abdi K., Nokandeh G., Azadi A., Biglari F., Heydari S., Farmani D., Rezaii A. and Mashkour M. 2002 – Tuwah Khoshkeh: A Middle Chalcolithic mobile pastoralist camp-site in the Islamabad plain, West Central Zagros Mountains, Iran. Iran 40: 43-74.

Abedi A., Eskandari N., Shahidi H. Kh., Sharahi I. and Shirzadeh G. 2014a – New Evidence from Dalma and Kura-Araxes Culture at Tapeh Qal’e-ye-Sarsakhti. Iran and the Caucasus 18: 101-114.

Abedi A., Shahidi H. Kh., Chataigner C., Niknami K., Eskandari N., Kazempour M., Pirmohammadi A., Hosseinzadeh J. and Ebrahimi G. 2014b – Excavation at Kul Tepe (Hadishahr), North-Western Iran, 2010: First Preliminary Report. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 51: 33-165.

Abedi A., Omrani B. and Karimifar A. 2015 – Fifth and fourth millennium BC in north-western Iran: Dalma and Pisdeli revisited. Documenta Praehistorica 42: 321-338.

Alden J. R., Minc L., Buehlman-Barbeau S. and Stein G. 2021 – Dalma ceramics at Surezha in the Erbil Plain: Stylistic, compositional, and petrographic evidence for trans-Zagros interaction during the Terminal Ubaid/Late Chalcolithic 1. Journal of Archaeological Science. Reports 39: 103168 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103168

Alizadeh A. 2006 – The Origins of State Organizations in Prehistoric Highland Fars, Southern Iran: Excavations at Tall-e Bakun. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Oriental Institute Publications 128).

Alizadeh A. 2010 – The rise of the highland Elamite state in southwestern Iran. Current Anthropology 51,3: 353-383.

Alizadeh A., Kouchoukos N., Wilkinson T. J., Bauer A. M. and Mashkour M. 2004 – Human-environment interactions on the Upper Khuzestan plains, southwest Iran: recent investigations. Paléorient 30,1: 69-88.

Bacvarov K. (ed.) 2008 – Babies Reborn: infant/child burials in pre- and protohistory. Proceedings of the XV UISPP World Congress (Lisbon, 4-9 September 2006)/Actes du XV Congrès Mondial (Lisbonne, 4-9 septembre 2006) vol. 24 Session WS26. Oxford: Archaeopress (BAR International Series 1832).

Bahranipoor H. 2016 – Report of the First Season of Rescue Excavation at Tappeh Nadali Beig, Songhor. Unpublished report, Tehran: Iranian Center for Archaeological Research. [in Persian].

Bahranipoor H. 2018 – Reevaluation of Cultural Interaction between the Central Zagros and Adjacent Regions during the Fifth Millennium BC based on Archaeological Data from the Site of Nadali Beig. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tehran. [in Persian]

Bahranipoor H. 2021 – Absolute Dating and Intra-Regional Diversity of Dalma Ceramic Tradition based on Analysis of the Painted Monochrome Ware. Journal of Research on Archaeometry 7,1. [in Persian]

Bahseliyev V. 2019 – Archaeological excavations at Nakhchivan Tepe settlement. Amisos 6,10: 1-14.

Bahseliyev V. 2020 – Relationships between Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic age culture of Azerbaijan with north-western Iran (Iranian Azerbaijan). Tüba-Ar 27: 11-27. [in Turkish]

Bahseliyev V. 2021 – Cultural and economic relationships of Nakhchivan in the Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic period. Nakhchivan: Ajemi Publishing Society.

Balmaki B. 2017 – The Dalma Culture in the Hamedan Plain: Stratigraphic Excavation at Tappeh Taze-Kand. Pazhohesh-ha-ye Bastanshenasi Iran 7,12: 63-82. [in Persian]

Barge O., Azizi Kharanaghi H., Biglari F., Moradi B., Mashkour M., Tengberg M. and Chataigner C. 2018 – Diffusion of Anatolian and Caucasian obsidian in the Zagros Mountains and the highlands of Iran: Elements of explanation in ‘least cost path’ models. Quaternary International 467: 297-322.

Boyd R., Dalrymple R. W. and Zaitlin B. A. 2006 – Estuarine and Incised-Valley Facies Models. In: Posamentier H. W. and Walker R. G. (eds.), Facies Models Revisited: 171-236. Tulsa: Society for Sedimentary Geology (Special Publication 84).

Braidwood R. J. and Howe B. 1960 – Prehistoric Investigations in Iraqi Kurdistan. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 31).

Brereton G. 2016 – Mortuary Rites, Economic Behaviour and the Circulation of Goods in the Transition from Village to Urban Life in Early Mesopotamia. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 26,2: 191-216.

Buehlman-Barbeau S. 2020 – Mapping Minerals, Charting Community: A Petrographic Study of Dalma Ware in the Chalcolithic Near East. M.Sc. thesis, Oregon State University.

Burney C. A. 1964 – The Excavations at Yanik Tepe, Azerbaijan, 1962: Third Preliminary Report. Iraq 26,1: 54-61.

Butterlin P. 2018 – Architecture et Société au Proche-Orient Ancien: Les bâtisseurs de mémoire en Mésopotamie. Paris: Picard.

Carter R. A. and Philip G. (eds.) 2010 – Beyond the Ubaid: Transformation and Integration in the Late Prehistoric Societies of the Middle East. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 63).

Chataigner C., Avetisyan P., Palumbi G. and Uerpmann H.-P. 2010 – Godedzor, a Late Ubaid-related settlement in the southern Caucasus. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 63: 377-394.

Chiocchetti L. 2007 – The Children’s Burials of ‘Ubaid Period: Tell Abu Husaini, the Hamrin Area and Beyond. Mesopotamia 42: 117-141.

Chiocchetti L. and Fornaris F. 2013 – The Prehistoric Pottery from Tell Hassan, Hamrin Valley, Iraq. Mesopotamia 48: 1-196.

Contenau G. and Ghirshman R. 1935 – Fouilles du Tépé-Giyan près de Néhavend, 1931 et 1932. Paris: Paul Geuthner.

Daujat J., Mashkour M., Emery-Barbier A., Neef R. and Bernbeck R. 2016 – Qale Rostam: Reconsidering the “Rise of a Highland Way of Life”: An integrated bioarchaeological analysis. In: Roustaei K. and Mashkour M. (eds.), The Neolithic of the Iranian Plateau: Recent Research: 107-136. Berlin: Ex Oriente (Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 18).

Dyson R. H. 1965 – Problems in the relative chronology of Iran, 6000-2000 B.C. In: Ehrich R. (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology: 215-265. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fallaheyan E. and Nozhati Kh. 2016 – Rescue Excavations at Tappeh Baaghi, Sardasht. In: Choubak H. (ed.), Proceedings of the 15th Congress on Iranian Archaeology: 492-498. Tehran: Research Institute of Cultural Heritage and Tourism. [in Persian]

Fiorina P. 1987 – Tell Hassan : Les couches halafiennes et obeidiennes et les relations entre les deux cultures. In: Huot J.-L. (ed.), Préhistoire de la Mésopotamie. La Mésopotamie préhistorique et l’exploration récente du djebel Hamrin: 243-255. Paris: CNRS Éditions.

Gelbert A. 1999 – Technological and stylistic borrowings between ceramic traditions: A case study from northeastern Senegal. In: Owen L. R. and Porr M. (eds.), Ethno-Analogy and the Reconstruction of Prehistoric Artefact Use and Production: 207-224. Tübingen: Mo Vince Verlag (Urgeschichtliche Materialhefte 14).

Gilbert A. S. 1983 – On the origins of specialized nomadic pastoralism in Western Iran. World Archaeology 15: 105-119.

Goff C. L. 1971 – Lūristān before the Iron Age. Iran 9: 131-152.

Gosselain O. P. 1998 – Social and technical identity in a clay crystal ball. In: Stark M. T. (ed.), The Archaeology of Social Boundaries: 78-106. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Gosselain O. P. 2001 – Globalizing local pottery studies. In: Beyries S. and Pétrequin P. (eds.), Ethnoarchaeology and Its Transfers: Papers from a Session Held at the European Association of Archaeologists’ Fifth Annual Meeting: 95-111. Oxford: Archaeopress (BAR International Series 983).

Gosselain O. P. 2008 – Mother Bella Was Not a Bella: Inherited and Transformed Traditions in Southwestern Niger. In: Stark M. T., Bowser B. J. and Horne L. (eds.), Cultural Transmission and Material Culture: Breaking Down Boundaries: 150-177. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.

Haerinck E. 1987 – The chronology of Luristan, Pusht-i Kuh in the late fourth and first half of the third millennium B.C. In: Huot J.-L. (ed.), Préhistoire de la Mésopotamie: La Mésopotamie préhistorique et l’exploration récente du Djebel Hamrin: 55-72. Paris: CNRS Éditions.

Hamlin C. 1973 – The 1971 Excavations at Seh Gabi, Iran. Archaeology 26,3: 224-227.

Hamlin C. 1974 – Seh Gabi, 1973. Archaeology 27,4: 274-277.

Hamlin C. 1975 – Dalma Tepe. Iran 13: 111-127.

Hammer E. and Arbuckle B. S. 2017 – 10,000 years of pastoralism in Anatolia: A review of evidence for variability in pastoral lifeways. Nomadic Peoples 20: 214-267.

Helwing B. 2013 – The Chalcolithic of Northern Iran. In: Potts D. T. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran: 79-92. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Henrickson E. F. 1983 – Ceramic Styles and Cultural Interaction in the Early and Middle Chalcolithic of the Central Zagros, Iran. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto.

Henrickson E. F. 1985a – An Updated Chronology of the Early and Middle Chalcolithic of the Central Zagros. Iran 23: 63-108.

Henrickson E. F. 1985b – The early development of pastoralism in the Central Zagros highlands (Luristan). Iranica Antiqua 20: 1-42.

Henrickson E. F. 1986 – Ceramic Evidence for Cultural Interaction between Chalcolithic Mesopotamia and Western Iran. In: Kingery W. D. and Lense E. (eds.), Technology and Style: 87-132. Columbus: American Ceramic Society (Ceramics and Civilization II).

Henrickson E. F. 1989 – Ceramic evidence for cultural interaction between the ‘Ubaid tradition and the Central Zagros highlands, western Iran. In: Henrickson E. F. and Thuesen I. (eds.), Upon this Foundation. The ‘Ubaid Reconsidered: 369-404. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press (Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publication 10).

Henrickson E. F. and Vitali V. 1987 – The Dalma Tradition: Prehistoric Inter-regional Cultural Integration in Highland Western Iran. Paléorient 13,2: 37-45.

Hole F. 1974 – Tepe Tula’I, an early campsite in Khuzistan, Iran. Paléorient 2: 219-242.

Hole F. 1978 – Pastoral nomadism in Western Iran. In: Gould R. A. (ed.), Explorations in Ethnoarchaeology: 127-167. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Hole F. 1989 – Patterns of Burial in the Fifth Millennium. In: Henrickson E. F. and Thuesen I. (eds.), Upon this Foundation. The ‘Ubaid Reconsidered: 149-180. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press (Carsten Niebuhr Publications 10).

Hole F. 2007 – Cycles of Settlement in the Khorramabad Valley in Luristan, Iran. In: Stone E. (ed.), Settlement and Society: Essays Dedicated to Robert McCormick Adams: 63-82. Los Angeles, Chicago: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at the University of California, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Howe B. 1983 – Karim Shahir. In: Braidwood L. S., Braidwood R. J., Howe B., Reed C. A. and Watson P. J. (eds.), Prehistoric Archaeology Along the Zagros Flanks: 23-154. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Oriental Institute Publications 105).

Jones S. 1997 – The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing identities in the past and present. London, New York: Routledge.

Karsgaard P. 2010 – The Halaf-Ubaid Transition: A Transformation without a Center? In: Carter R. and Philip G. (eds.), Beyond the Ubaid: Transformation and Integration in the Late Prehistoric Societies of the Middle East: 51-68. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 63).

Kearton R. R. B. 1969 – Survey in Azerbaijan. Iran 7: 186-187.

Khazanov A. M. 1994 – Nomads and the Outside World. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Khazanov A. M. 2009 – Specific Characteristics of Chalcolithic and Bronze Age Pastoralism in the Near East. In: Szuchman J. (ed.), Nomads, Tribes, and the State in the Ancient Near East: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives: 119-128. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Oriental Institute Seminars 5).

Kramer C. 1977 – Pots and Peoples. In: Levine L. D. and Young T. C. Jr. (eds.), Mountains and Lowlands: Essays in the Archaeology of Greater Mesopotamia: 91-112. Malibu: Undena Publications (Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 7).

Levine L. D. 1975a – The Excavations at Seh Gabi. In: Bagherzadeh F. (ed.), Proceedings of the IIIrd Annual Symposium on Archaeological Research in Iran: 31-44. Tehran: Iranian Centre for Archaeological Research.

Levine L. D. 1975b – Archaeological Investigations in the Mahidasht, Western Iran 1975. Paléorient 2,2: 487-490.

Levine L. D. 1976a – Survey in the Province of Kermanšāhān, 1975: Māhidašt in the Prehistoric and Early Historic Periods. In: Bagherzadeh F. (ed.), Proceedings of the IVth Annual Symposium on Archaeological Research in Iran: 284-297. Tehran: Iranian Centre for Archaeological Research.

Levine L. D. 1976b – The Mahidasht Project. Iran 14: 160-161.

Levine L. D. and McDonald M. M. A. 1977 – The Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods in the Mahidasht. Iran 15: 39-50.

Levine L. D. and Young T. C. 1987 – A summary of the ceramic assemblages of the central Western Zagros from the Middle Neolithic to the late third millennium B.C. In: Huot J.-L. (ed.), Préhistoire de la Mésopotamie: La Mésopotamie préhistorique et l’exploration récente du Djebel Hamrin: 15-53. Paris: CNRS Éditions.

McDonald M. M. A. 1979 – An Examination of Mid-Holocene Settlement Patterns in the Central Zagros Region of Western Iran. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto.

Moholy-Nagy H. 1983 – Jarmo Artifacts of Pecked and Ground Stone and of Shell. In: Braidwood L. S., Braidwood R. J., Howe B., Reed C. A. and Watson P. J. (eds.), Prehistoric Archaeology Along the Zagros Flanks: 289-346. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Oriental Institute Publications 105).

Narimanov I. G. 1987 – The Culture of the Earliest Farmers and Herders in Azerbaijan: The Chalcolithic Period 6th-4th Millennium B.C. Baku: Elm. [in Russian]

Nobari A. H., Binandeh A., Neyestani J. and Nasab H. V. 2012 – Excavation at Lavin Tepe in Northwest Iran. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 49: 95-117.

Orange M., Bakhshaliyev V., Berthon R., Marro C. and Le Bourdonnec F.-X. 2021 – Polysource procurement at Nakhchivan Tepe (Azerbaijan, Chalcolithic): First insights into the obsidian consumption patterns of a Dalma site recently discovered in the Southern Caucasus. In: Biró K. T. and Markó A. (eds.), Beyond the Glass Mountains: Papers presented for the 2019 International Obsidian Conference 27-29 May 2019, Sárospatak: 121-132. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum (Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae 14).

Peebles M. A. 2018 – Connected Communities: Networks, Identity, and Social Change in the Ancient Cibola World. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.

Potts D. T. 2014 – Nomadism in Iran: From Antiquity to the Modern Era. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rahimi Sorkhani R. and Eslami M. 2018 – Specialized pottery production in Dalma tradition; a statistical approach in pottery analysis from Soha Chay Tepe, Zanjan, Iran. Journal of Archaeological Science. Reports 17: 220-234.

Razaghi H. and Fahimi H. 2004 – A preliminary report on soundings at Tappeh Jolbar (Khan Baba), West Azerbaijan, July-August 1996. Iranian Journal of Archaeology and History 18,2: 52-59. [in Persian]

Renette S. and Mohammadi Ghasrian S. 2020 – The central and northern Zagros during the Late Chalcolithic: An updated ceramic chronology based on recent fieldwork results in western Iran. Paléorient 46,1-2: 109-132.

Renette S., Abu Jayyab Kh., Gibbon E., Lewis M. P., Abdullkarim Qadir Z., Cabral R. and Tomé A. G. 2021a – Late Chalcolithic ceramic development in southern Iraqi Kurdistan: The stratigraphic sounding at Kani Shaie. Iraq 83: 119-166.

Renette S., Khayani A. and Levine L. D. 2021b – Chogha Maran: A local center of the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age in the Central Zagros. Iranica Antiqua 56: 1-107.

Renfrew C. and Dixon J. E. 1976 – Obsidian in Western Asia: a review. In: Sieveking G. D. G., Longworth I. H. and Wilson K. E. (eds.), Problems in Economic and Social Archaeology: 137-150. London: Duckworth.

Saed Mucheshi A., Zamani Dadaneh M., Ghasemi M. and Karimi Z. 2017 – Stratigraphy at Tepe Namashir of the Baneh Region, Western Iran. Pazhohesh-ha-ye Bastanshenasi Iran 7,12: 43-62. [in Persian]

Schortman E. M. 1989 – Interregional Interaction in Prehistory: The Need for a New Perspective. American Antiquity 54,1: 52-65.

Sharifi M. 2020 – Excavations at Tepe Gheshlagh, Bijar (Eastern Central Zagros). Tehran: Research Institute of Cultural Heritage and Tourism (Archaeological Report Monographs Series 2 No. 4).

Sharifi M. and Motarjem A. 2018 – The process of cultural change in the Chalcolithic period in the highlands of Western Iran at Tepe Gheshlagh. Documenta Praehistorica 45: 86-99.

Sharp M. and Kaercher K. 2018 – Chalcolithic ceramic connections between Mesopotamia and Iran, c. 5900-5100 B.C.E. Iraq 80: 233-250.

Solecki R. S. 1969 – Survey in Western Azerbaijan. Iran 7: 189-190.

Solecki R. L. and Solecki R. S. 1973 – Tepe Seavan, a Dalma period site in the Margavar Valley, Azerbaijan, Iran. Bulletin of the Asia Institute 3: 98-117.

Stein A. 1940 – Old Routes of Western Iran. London: MacMillan and Co. Ltd.

Stein G. J. 2010 – Local identities and interaction spheres: modeling regional variation in the Ubaid horizon. In: Carter R. and Philip G. (eds.), Beyond the Ubaid: Transformation and Integration in the Late Prehistoric Societies of the Middle East: 23-44. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 63).

Stein G. J. and Alizadeh A. 2014 – Surezha, Kurdistan. Oriental Institute Annual Report 2013-2014: 133-146.

Swiny S. 1975 – Survey in North-West Iran, 1971. East and West 25,1/2: 77-97.

Tonoike Y. 2010 – Beyond Style: Petrographic Analysis of Dalma Ceramics from Two Regions in Iran. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University.

Tonoike Y. 2012 – Petrographic Analysis of the 6th Millennium B.C. Dalma Ceramics from Northwestern and Central Zagros. Iranian Journal of Archaeological Studies 2,2: 65-82.

Tonoike Y. 2013 – Beyond Style: Petrographic Analysis of Dalma Ceramics in Two Regions of Iran. In: Nieuwenhuyse O., Bernbeck R., Akkermans P. M. M. G and Rogasch J. (eds.), Interpreting the Late Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia: 397-406. Turnhout: Brepols.

Vandiver P. 1987 – Sequential Slab Construction; A Conservative Southwest Asiatic Ceramic Tradition, ca. 7000-3000 B.C. Paléorient 13,2: 9-35.

Voigt M. M. 1976 – Hajji Firuz Tepe: An economic reconstruction of a sixth millennium community in western Iran. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Ann Arbor, Mich: University Microfilms International.

Voigt M. M. 1983 – Hasanlu Excavation Reports I. Hajji Firuz Tepe, Iran: The Neolithic Settlement. Philadelphia: University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania (University Museum Monograph 50).

Voigt M. M. and Dyson R. H. Jr. 1992 – The Chronology of Iran, ca. 8000-2000 B.C. In: Ehrich R. W. (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology: 122-178. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Watson P. J. 1983a – Jarmo Worked Bone. In: Braidwood L. S., Braidwood R. J., Howe B., Reed C. A. and Watson P. J. (eds.), Prehistoric Archaeology Along the Zagros Flanks: 347-368. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Oriental Institute Publications 105).

Watson P. J. 1983b – The Soundings at Banahilk. In: Braidwood L. S., Braidwood R. J., Howe B., Reed C. A. and Watson P. J. (eds.), Prehistoric Archaeology Along the Zagros Flanks: 545-614. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Oriental Institute Publications 105).

Weeks L., Alizadeh K., Niakan L., Alamdari K., Zeidi M., Khosrowzadeh A. and McCall B. 2006 – The Neolithic Settlement of Highland SW Iran: New Evidence from the Mamasani District. Iran 44: 1-31.

Weeks L., Petrie C. A. and Potts D. T. 2010 – Ubaid-related-related? The “Black-on-Buff” ceramic traditions of highland southwest Iran. In: Carter R. and Philip G. (eds.), Beyond the Ubaid: Transformation and Integration in the Late Prehistoric Societies of the Middle East: 245-276. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 63).

Young T. C. Jr. 1962 – Taking the History of the Hasanlu Area Back Another Five Thousand Years. Illustrated London News 241: 707-709.

Young T. C. Jr. 1963 – Dalma Painted Ware. Expedition 5: 38-39.

Young T. C. Jr. 1966 – Survey in Western Iran, 1961. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 25,4: 228-239.

Young T. C. Jr. 1975 – An Archaeological Survey of the Kangāvar Valley. In: Bagherzadeh F. (ed.), Proceedings of the IIIrd Annual Symposium on Archaeological Research in Iran: 23-30. Tehran: Iranian Centre for Archaeological Research.

Young T. C. Jr. and Levine L. D. 1974 – Excavations of the Godin Project: Second Progress Report. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum (Royal Ontario Museum Art and Archaeology Occasional Paper 26).

Zagarell A. 1989 – Pastoralism and the early state in Greater Mesopotamia. In: Lamberg-Karlovsky C. C. (ed.), Archaeological Thought in America: 280-301. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zamani Dadaneh M., Renette S. and Saed Mucheshi A. 2021 – Connections between the northern Zagros and Mesopotamia during the fifth millennium BCE: New insights from Tepe Namashir in western Iran. Origini 45.

Zarei M. E., Mohammadi Ghasrian S. and Abdolahpur M. 2017 – An Archaeological Survey of Tappeh Gryashan of Sanandaj. Pazhohesh-ha-ye Bastanshenasi Iran 7,12: 9-24. [in Persian]

Zeynivand M., Hariryan H. and Heydarian M. 2013 – The Dalma Settlements of Songhor and Koliyaei Plains, Central Zagros. Iranian Journal of Archaeological Studies 3: 39-47.

Haut de page

Notes

1 For example, remarks about the nature of Dalma as a separate archaeological culture or an amalgam of vessel types with overlapping regional distributions were made at different times during the 12th ICAANE 2021 workshop on the Ubaid-LC1 transition.

2 An earlier version of this map with a more restricted distribution within the northern Zagros appeared in Zamani Dadaneh et al. 2021. With additional publication of material from Nakhchivan Tepe, it is now clear that the full Dalma tradition spread northward, although possibly only for a brief period considering that only few sites with Dalma pottery have so far been identified in Nakhchivan (Bahseliyev 2021).

3 Additional Dalma pottery was retrieved in a deep sounding at Hasanlu (level IX) in 1960 (Voigt 1976: xlvii) and at a series of small excavations at Hajji Firuz in 1958, 1960-1961, and 1968 (Voigt 1976: 18-65, 1983).

4 Recent excavations at Nadali Beig in the Songhor region of the central Zagros explored Dalma occupation in more detail, but at the time of writing the results from this project have not yet been published (Bahranipoor 2016, 2018). A new excavation project at Dalma Tepe has also recently been initiated, which will hopefully produce the first extensive dataset from this period (Abedi, pers. comm.).

5 At present, not a single excavation of Dalma occupation has been published in full. The referenced published reports typically show one or two plates with a handful of selected sherds. The only substantial datasets available in print are in E. Henrickson’s 1983 Ph.D. dissertation where she presented a representative selection of Dalma pottery, including most retrieved painted sherds, from Seh Gabi (total of 382 sherd drawings: figs. 44-46, 50-51, 55-64), and more recently the comprehensive publication of 89 Dalma sherds (up to 2.2% of the total assemblage) from Surezha (Alden et al. 2021).

6 Insufficiently detailed plans or absence of plans in those short reports prevent a compilation. I refer instead to the individual reports themselves for descriptions and photographs.

7 Hamlin reports that walls at Dalma Tepe were constructed with chineh (pisé) rather than mudbricks (Hamlin 1975: 113). However, at other sites, excavators documented irregular use of mudbricks (various sizes and shapes) and often the wall needed to be cut in order to determine this construction method. Perhaps an alternative interpretation of these reports is that Dalma architecture was built using a clay slab method rather than systematically prepared mudbricks, which can be difficult to identify during excavation, especially under hurried conditions.

8 Again, short publications of this material often include only a few items and/or low-resolution photographs, which prevents the compilation of an overview plate for these objects. I refer instead to the relevant figures in those reports.

9 Interestingly, no such rings have been reported from Dalma Tepe, but they might not have been included in the short report or they were not recorded during the short excavations, since small objects might have been missed (Hamlin 1975: 115).

10 See Renette and Mohammadi Ghasrian 2020 for an initial attempt to bring the Zagros Chalcolithic chronology in line with the current Mesopotamian and northern Iranian chronological frameworks.

11 To further confuse matters, early radiocarbon dates from the key sequences have wide margins of error and were typically reported uncalibrated (Voigt and Dyson 1992).

12 The very few radiocarbon dates from the early excavations at Dalma Tepe and Seh Gabi (summarized in Voigt and Dyson 1992: table 2) suffered from methodological issues related to the initial application of this dating technology and they are therefore not fully reliable or at least their factor of uncertainty is much too great to be useful.

13 Similarly, Neolithic and early Bakun pottery in southern Iran also occasionally shares the bold geometric motifs with Dalma (Alizadeh 2006; Weeks et al. 2006).

14 At Tell Hassan, these few sherds combine impressions with paint, which is generally not attested in Dalma assemblages (Hamlin 1975: 118; Chiocchetti and Fornaris 2013: 105). However, in the unpublished survey data from the Mahidasht region in the western central Zagros, a variant of “Dalma painted and impressed” ware has been attested with a few sherds (personal observation).

15 At Surezha, Dalma wares are reported mainly from Late Chalcolithic 1 contexts (Alden et al. 2021), but this is most likely a result of a different definition to distinguish Ubaid from Late Chalcolithic 1 (Renette et al. 2021a: 155). Within the Kani Shaie sequence, we relied on diminishing frequencies of Ubaid painted wares to identify Ubaid from Late Chalcolithic 1, while other projects might rely on other parameters such as increasing frequencies of incised wares. Hopefully with efforts such as this edited collection of papers, a more broadly accepted and well-defined chronological periodization for the early to mid-5th millennium can be established.

16 Admittedly, there are more early sites excavated in the Hamrin valley, so this might be a bias in our dataset.

17 Undoubtedly more sites with Dalma occupation have been mapped by Iranian archaeologists in the past two decades, but many fieldwork results remain unpublished. Within the published literature, sites with reliably identified Dalma occupation are from north to south Tepe Jolbar (Razaghi and Fahimi 2004), Lavin Tepe (Nobari et al. 2012), Tepe Baghi (Fallaheyan and Nozhati 2016), Tepe Namashir (Saed Mucheshi et al. 2017; Zamani Dadaneh et al. 2021), Tepe Gheshlagh (Sharifi and Motarjem 2018; Sharifi 2020), Tepe Gryashan (Zarei et al. 2017), Nadali Beig (Zeynivand et al. 2013, Bahranipoor 2016, 2018), Tepe Taze-kand (Balmaki 2017).

18 Similar sherds from Yanik Tepe are also described as having dark paint on a red to brown burnished background (Burney 1964: pl. XV.2-3). These sherds from Yanik Tepe and Kul Tepe have a decoration that consists of hatched lozenges and triangles with fine painted lines that leave plenty of unpainted spaces, while Dalma pottery more typically has thick bands with densely hatched or solidly painted motifs that leave very little unpainted spaces. Given the long-lasting uniformity of the Dalma aesthetic in painted pottery designs and use of color (red to maroon on a light-colored to white slipped background), such distinctions should not be dismissed. Additional work needs to be done to determine whether this eastern Urmia painted style with dark red to black painted hatched designs on a red to brown burnished background is a variant of Dalma pottery in the northeastern Urmia basin or if it is a production that is technologically closer related to the Transitional Chalcolithic black-on-red pottery (plum ware) of northern Iran. At least the evidence from Kul Tepe with its radiocarbon dates ca. 4500-4400 BCE suggests that this material postdates the Dalma tradition, but the chronological, geographical, and cultural relationship remains unclear.

19 In 2014, G. Shirzadeh and G. Kaka excavated two small soundings at Tepe Qaleh-ye Sarsakhti, but the results of this work still await publication.

20 . – For a discussion of the formation of such inland, incised valleys and plains, see e.g. Boyd et al. 2006. Incised, colluvial valleys that were formed through fluvial erosion offer good agricultural potential, fresh water sources, a diverse ecosystem across a range of altitudes, and a heterogeneous geological surrounding that potentially produced valuable natural resources.

21 Neolithic communities certainly maintained regular interaction outside their immediate territory as can be most clearly seen from the distribution of obsidian throughout the Zagros that came from sources in eastern Anatolia and the southern Caucasus (Renfrew and Dixon 1976; Barge et al. 2018). Already during the Neolithic, ceramic technology became widely shared throughout the Zagros as well, as evidenced by the so-called “soft-ware horizon” (Dyson 1965; Vandiver 1987), which was replaced by or developed into the common Zagros chaff-tempered, red-slipped wares characteristic of the Chalcolithic periods (Renette and Mohammadi Ghasrian 2020). Still, these heuristic categories of supraregional technologically related wares should not be confused with homogeneity of ceramic tradition throughout the Zagros as they obscure variety in local practices in plain ware production that remains unexplored in any detail. We see perhaps two separate trajectories: gradually developing plain wares that were technologically similar throughout the Zagros and highly localized decorated, finer wares that periodically underwent radical change.

22 In order to truly investigate the expression of salient identities within these Chalcolithic cultures, we would require much larger datasets. A recent study of southwestern US ceramic traditions has demonstrated the potential of synthetic analysis of large archaeological datasets for reconstructing identities and how they changed through times of profound social transformation (Peebles 2018). Such methodological advances will hopefully be possible to be applied on the case-study of the prehistory of southwest Asia as well with more and larger-scale fieldwork.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1 – Reconstructed Dalma painted vessels from Dalma Tepe.
Crédits Courtesy of the Penn Museum, cf. Penn Museum online collections for additional photographs of pottery from Dalma Tepe.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/1699/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 139k
Titre Fig. 2 – Map showing the estimated extent of the Dalma territory and distribution of Dalma impressed and painted sherds.
Crédits Map S. Renette.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/1699/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 341k
Titre Fig. 3 – Plain and red-slipped pottery from Dalma sites.
Crédits Redrawn S. Renette after Solecki and Solecki 1973; Young and Levine 1974; Hamlin 1975; Henrickson 1983; Nobari et al. 2012; Saed Mucheshi et al. 2017.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/1699/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,5M
Titre Fig. 4 – Dalma and Dalma-related pottery from late Ubaid contexts at Kani Shaie.
Légende a. Red-slipped, heavily chaff-tempered rim sherd; b-d. Plain, heavily chaff-tempered body sherds; e. Dalma painted sherd with white slip and faint traces of red slip on interior; f-h. Dalma impressed sherds with traces of maroon to brown slip on exterior and interior; i-l. Dalma-related impressed sherds on greyish buff, unslipped ware.
Crédits Photographs from the Kani Shaie Archaeological Project.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/1699/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 540k
Titre Fig. 5 – Sherds with small finger impressions from Late Chalcolithic 1 contexts at Kani Shaie.
Crédits Photographs from the Kani Shaie Archaeological Project.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/1699/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 36k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Steve Renette, « Defining Dalma: an Incipient Mountain Identity? »Paléorient, 48-1 | -1, 111-130.

Référence électronique

Steve Renette, « Defining Dalma: an Incipient Mountain Identity? »Paléorient [En ligne], 48-1 | 2022, mis en ligne le 02 août 2022, consulté le 11 février 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/1699 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/paleorient.1699

Haut de page

Auteur

Steve Renette

Department of Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Studies, University of British Columbia, Vancouver – Canada

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search