Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros48-2Domed or flat? The case study of ...

Domed or flat? The case study of Building 21 at Kiçik Tepe (Middle Kura Valley, Azerbaijan) and a reconsideration of the Neolithic roofing architecture in the South Caucasus

Emmanuel Baudouin, Alexia Decaix, Emmanuela Brunacci, Farhad Guliyev et Giulio Palumbi

Résumés

Résumé. Le site de Kiçik Tepe (Azerbaïdjan) se trouve dans la moyenne vallée de la Kura. L’ensemble du mobilier archéologique ainsi que les datations par radiocarbone permettent d’attribuer les niveaux les plus anciens à la période néolithique (5870-5750 BCE). Son architecture de forme circulaire en fait un site typique de la culture Aratashen-Shulaveri-Shomu. Les campagnes de fouilles menées en 2018 et 2019 ont conduit à la mise au jour du bâtiment 21, conservé sur une hauteur de 1,4 m. Construit en briques crues, l’édifice doit son état de conservation exceptionnel à un incendie qui a entraîné l’effondrement du mur et de la toiture. À partir des résultats archéologiques apportés par la fouille et d’une étude pluridisciplinaire combinant examen de la stratigraphie, étude architecturale et analyse anthracologique, cet article propose de reconstituer l'élévation et la toiture du bâtiment 21. Il propose également de s’interroger sur une éventuelle diversité des formes de toit (conique, en dôme, plat) au Néolithique telle qu’elle apparaît dans la littérature archéologique. Il s’agit également de comprendre quels peuvent être les facteurs (environnementaux, culturels, socio-culturels) à l’origine de cette diversité et s’ils sont perceptibles par l’archéologie. Cet article contribue à alimenter grâce à des données nouvelles la question des spécificités techniques développées par ces communautés et à mieux définir l’architecture dans ses trois dimensions afin d’appréhender la complexité liant « comportements » culturels, matériaux de construction et solutions architecturales au sein des communautés néolithiques.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

We are grateful to the Fondation des Treilles for the financial support of this study’s publication in the framework of the “Prix Jeune Chercheur” awarded for the study of Kiçik Tepe’s documentation. We also thank the three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments.

1The development of domestic architecture in the South Caucasus reveals the existence of original traditions (Baudouin 2019: 145) since the beginning, around 6000 BCE. Previous studies on the architecture of this region have already shown a complex reality (Baudouin 2019, 2021): while all communities in the South Caucasus share some fundamental elements, namely the circular plan, significant micro-regional variations (e.g., plano-convex mud bricks or semi-subterranean buildings in the Kura Valley or terraced buildings in the Mil Plain) indicate the existence of distinct techno-cultural groups (fig. 1). The present research focuses on an exceptionally well-preserved building from Kiçik Tepe (Azerbaijan). It aims to highlight these diversities, also concerning the roofing of the circular Neolithic architecture typical of the South Caucasus. The question of roofing is still unclear and hotly debated in the Neolithic architecture of the South Caucasus. We hope that the new data collected at Kiçik Tepe will contribute to the current debate on these issues.

Fig. 1 – Map of the South Caucasus with a synthesis of architectural techniques on the main Neolithic sites.

Fig. 1 – Map of the South Caucasus with a synthesis of architectural techniques on the main Neolithic sites.

E. Baudouin

  • 1 Translation: The house “is made according to the norms of the group and for the group" (Coudart 19 (...)

2In the context of this paper, we believe it is important to focus our attention on domestic architecture because, as previously pointed out by A. Coudart, the house “est fabriquée selon les normes du groupe et pour le groupe”1 (Coudart 1998: 18) and therefore its study can open new perspectives on the social, cultural and organizational aspects of the Neolithic populations of the South Caucasus. Similarly, recent anthropological and archaeological discussions have shown how architecture can be seen as an important form of symbolic representation, a material expression of concepts, values and social orders (Parker Pearson and Richards 1994; Wengrow 1998). All of this research indicates that how we inhabit and live in the built environment and how we think about that environment are mutually related and deeply rooted in society, as they are both social practices (Kent 1990: 128) that can actively shape group identity. For P. Bourdieu, architecture and particularly domestic space (Bourdieu 1980: 101) is the reification of social and cultural norms (see also Foster 2009: 77), so the built environment can have a strong identity value that we assume is individual and also collective.

3In the context of domestic architecture, we will focus our attention on the roof because, as suggested by A. Rapoport (1969: 34), being the “place” where human activity (in both technical and mental terms) is most present (Deffontaines 1972: 62), the roof is probably the most representative symbol of the house. Indeed, the roof is the nerve centre of the house; it controls the general layout of the building and requires various solutions adapted to environmental and technical factors (Besenval 1984: 168) and also to social aspects. These seem particularly important because historical and social conditions also play a role in the roofing layout, as shown by P. Deffontaines (1972: 84, 1975: 65, 73) in the Catalan Pyrenees, where the terraced roof, probably the result of African or Carthaginian influences, attested before the 16th century, was replaced by a pitched roof originating from the Bigorre region in the French Pyrenees. Within this framework, some ethnographic studies have also shown how the roofing of a house can help mark a social or ethnic identity (Pelmoine and Mayor 2020: 20).

4This article focuses on this particular aspect of construction which is often “invisible” in the archaeological evidence because it is not preserved, based on the evidence from Building 21 at Kiçik Tepe. This will allow us to discuss whether there is a common form of roofing of Neolithic houses in the South Caucasus (as is often assumed, see below) or rather a diversity of roofing forms and techniques. At the same time, we will also attempt to discuss the factors (environmental, cultural, socio-cultural) that may have played a role in the roofing choices.

5This study combines a multidisciplinary approach (stratigraphic, architectural and anthracological data) integrated into a review of ancient published data related to roofing in the ancient and contemporary Near East. It intends to represent a new approach to the study of roofing systems in the Neolithic architecture of the South Caucasus.

The Neolithisation process in the South Caucasus

6The first discoveries of Neolithic communities (6th millennium BCE) in the South Caucasus were made in the middle of the 20th century in the Araxes (Abibullaev 1959) and Kura River valleys (Dzhavakhishvili and Dzhaparidze 1975; Kiguradze 1986; Narimanov 1987). Three main hypotheses have been debated for a long time to explain the origins of the first sedentary communities (Chataigner et al. 2014; Sagona 2018: 85-86):

  1. An independent local evolution (Niebieridze 1978; Amirkhanov 1987);
  2. Cultural interactions between Syro-Mesopotamian communities and those of the South Caucasus (Kiguradze 1986; Kushnareva 1997);
  3. A “colonisation” by the Syro-Mesopotamian Neolithic communities (Abibullaev 1959; Narimanov 1987).

7Nevertheless, archaeological research on the Neolithisation processes of the South Caucasus has significantly intensified in the last decades (Lyonnet et al. 2012; Helwing et al. 2017; Marro et al. 2019; Nishiaki et al. 2019; Nishiaki and Guliyev 2020; Nishiaki et al. 2021; Palumbi et al. 2021; Badalyan et al. 2022a). It has yielded significant insights into the emergence of the first sedentary and food-producing societies around 6000 BCE, commonly labelled 'Aratashen-Shulaveri-Shomutepe’ culture (Badalyan et al. 2022b: 257; hereafter AShSh). Although the dynamics of Neolithisation are still debated (Nishiaki et al. 2018: 1-2; Palumbi et al. 2021: 31), archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological data show that these communities mastered exogenous Near Eastern productive technologies, such as agriculture (Decaix 2016) and animal husbandry (Benecke 2017: 360) from the beginning. In addition, a few North Mesopotamian ceramics discovered at several sites in the Araxes (Harutyunyan 2022: 94-97) and Kura River valleys (Nishiaki et al. 2015: 11) reinforce the hypothesis of relationships between South Caucasian and Near Eastern communities. However, while the mechanisms of this Neolithisation point to an adopted allochthonous socio-economic system, there is also evidence of indigenous and entirely original developments. For instance, the almost total absence of ceramics at some of the earliest Neolithic sites (Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, Kiçik Tepe), as well as the similarity between the Neolithic (Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe) and Mesolithic (Damjili Cave) lithic assemblages point towards a possible techno-cultural continuity with the local Mesolithic communities (Nishiaki et al. 2019: 9). Finally, the architectural data point to original technical traditions in the South Caucasus compared to Mesopotamia, marked by micro-regional specificities between the Kura and Araxes rivers valleys (Baudouin 2019).

The South Caucasian Neolithic architecture in context

  • 2 The only exception is a rectangular building identified in Horizon VII (5900-5880 cal. BC) at Akna (...)

8Following Badalyan et al. (2022b: 257-259), “the sites of the Shulaveri-Shomutepe group [in the Kura Valley] and those of the Aratashen-Aknashen group [in the Araxes Valley] are located in similar landscapes, i.e. low-altitude alluvial valleys with dense watercourse networks”. Environmental data from the lake basins of Georgia and Armenia allow for the reconstruction of the climate and landscape during the Neolithic period, highlighting an increase in humid conditions after the dry 8.2 ka event (Messager et al. 2013: 137; Joannin et al. 2014: 77; Ollivier et al. 2018: 283). From the appearance of the first sedentary villages around 6000 BCE in the South Caucasus, the circular plan became the almost exclusive architectural form2 used throughout the Neolithic period by the region's farming communities (fig. 1). Our impression is that the systematic use of the circular plan has strongly influenced archaeologists' perception of AShSh, leading them to view it, well beyond architectural forms, as a homogeneous and widely shared material tradition, albeit with regional variations (Badalyan et al. 2022b: 257). However, this homogeneous image of AShSh has been challenged by recent research on pottery (Marro et al. 2019: 111; Iserlis 2021: 133; Palumbi et al. 2021: 2, 31) and agricultural and livestock practices (Berthon 2014: 14; Nishiaki et al. 2019: 13) by showing both dynamics of regionalization and localized subsistence strategies.

9In fact, archaeological evidence shows that the circular architecture tradition underwent several stages of diachronic change at local (Nishiaki et al. 2020b: 106) and regional scales (Baudouin 2019: 145-146), and that these changes could be signs of technological and social upheavals. It is visible in the materials used to raise the walls, when, for example, cob seems to vanish after one-third into the sixth millennium. Mud-brick was known from the beginning and was used throughout the Neolithic period, albeit with increasingly standardized modules. Simultaneously, while the circular plan developed over almost a millennium, the surface area of the circular buildings tends to decrease over time. These changes go along with developments in the spatial organization of the buildings, from cells functioning in pairs (the so-called snowman-shape; Nishiaki et al. 2015: 5) to cells arranged around a central courtyard and linked by low walls (the so-called compound; Hansen et al. 2013: 393). According to Nishiaki and Guliyev (2021: 227), “the change from snowman-shaped to ring-shaped household plans no doubt reflects the transformation of social organizations during the early phases of Neolithic development”. Moreover, this development of the household also coincides with a shift in the spatial organization of domestic activities in the Kura Valley. Storage structures and culinary hearths or fire-pits located inside the largest dwellings before 5700-5500 BCE are later moved to the compounds’ courtyards (Baudouin 2019: 141). It has been suggested that this transformation, whereby daily activities related to food preparation and storage were moved to the open courtyards and outside the circular dwellings (Kadowaki et al. 2015: 423), is possibly related to an enlargement of the family unit during the later Neolithic stage (Flannery 2002: 424; Baudouin 2019: 145).

10As far as architecture is concerned, the wall elevation’s state of preservation is often limited and rarely indicates any roof’s shape. Thus, the a priori homogeneous circular plan of the AShSh communities, which was often associated with a domed roof based on the first reconstructions made in the seventies (Dzhavakhishvili 1973: 73, 210; Munchaev 1975: fig. 4), does not necessarily reflect the wide range of archaeologically ‘invisible’ architectural solutions that may have characterized and differentiated these buildings.

The site of Kiçik Tepe

  • 3 Under the aegis of the Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs and in collaboration with the Instit (...)

11Kiçik Tepe (40°57'49.85''N; 45°43'49.32''E; 390 m asl) is located in the Tovuz district, near the present-day village of Qovlar, and near the Neolithic settlements of Göy Tepe (Nishiaki and Guliyev 2020), Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe (Nishiaki et al. 2015) and Mentesh Tepe (Lyonnet et al. 2012, 2016). It was first identified in 2013 by F. Guliyev and F. Huseynov (Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences). Since 2017, a Franco-Azerbaijani team has conducted three excavation campaigns in the frame of the “Mission Boyuk Kesik’s”3 activities to understand better the Neolithisation process in the Kura River valley.

12The Neolithic levels (phases 2-3) are dated between 5870 and 5750 BCE (Palumbi et al. 2021: table 3, 15). Phase 3, which is the earliest, has been uncovered so-far only in the far western part of the site and shows evidence of individual buildings. Phase 2 (the latest) has revealed a plan with “proto-compound” houses (fig. 2) where the cells are arranged around a courtyard. In phases 3 and 2, sun-dried mud-bricks, elongated and flat, are always used for the construction of buildings. The composition of mud-bricks is very consistent: they are made of a mixture of water, earth and organic temper. Some mud-bricks have straight edges, which may suggest they were molded. Compared to regional sizes, the mud-bricks of Kiçik Tepe are characteristic of the beginning of the Neolithic in the Middle Kura Valley (Baudouin 2019: 128, fig. 5). As concerns the “finishing” of the walls, interior and exterior faces were coated with a mixture of earth, water and organic temper.

Fig. 2 – General plan of the settlement of Kiçik Tepe (Azerbaijan) during the Neolithic period.

Fig. 2 – General plan of the settlement of Kiçik Tepe (Azerbaijan) during the Neolithic period.

M. Brunacci

13During the 2018-2019 campaigns (fig. 3a) two buildings (2 and 21) dating to phase 3 were excavated. Building 2 is a large circular mud-brick dwelling (ca. 4.2 m in diameter). Inside, a significant number of features were concentrated along the wall (fig. 3c), among them a clay silo for storage containing charred grain seeds and two fireplaces probably related to cooking activities. In the case of Building 21 (fig. 3b), an abundance of bone tools (awls and spatulas; fig. 4d), perforated animal scapulae with traces of use-wear and a significant concentration of obsidian artifacts counterbalance the absence of internal features. Furthermore, mugwort (Artemisia sp.) inflorescences were also abundant (see below). Altogether, this evidence may indicate the practice of different types of activities in Building 21 and, possibly, that it could have been an auxiliary building to adjacent Building 2 (Palumbi et al. 2021: 17).

Fig. 3 – General view of the site (a) and details of buildings 21 (b) and 2 (c).

Fig. 3 – General view of the site (a) and details of buildings 21 (b) and 2 (c).

Mission Boyuk Kesik

Fig. 4 – The collapsed roof level.

Fig. 4 – The collapsed roof level.

a. Remains of charred plant material in situ; b. Brick wall to the South, with rubbed plaster; c. Accidentally burnt mud-bricks against the wall; d. Bone spatula.

Mission Boyuk Kesik

14The preserved height of Building 2 is insufficient to allow its complete three-dimensional reconstruction. However, Building 21's state of preservation, together with much clearer evidence of its structural remains and the dynamics of its collapse, was more favourable and informative for a proposal to restore the elevation and roof.

Material and methods

15The multidisciplinary work presented here combines stratigraphic and archaeobotanical data to reconstruct the elevation of Building 21, its roofing (shape and techniques), and its construction techniques within the framework of the combined use of earth and wood. Our analytical approach, based on O. Aurenche’s (1981) research, aims to understand architecture in its three dimensions because, as pointed out by Le Corbusier (1986: 26), “Mass and surface are the elements by which architecture manifests itself”. The objective is thus to restore the mass and surface of the buildings by reconstructing circulation, lighting (or ventilation systems) and roofing (Rapoport 1969: 104-105).

16Archaeological layers were recorded as SU (Stratigraphic Units) to reconstruct the relative chronology of actions and events. For the archaeobotanical study, sediment samples from different contexts (floor levels, collapsed roof, structure fill and upper brick collapse) were sieved using a flotation machine (table 1). Organic residues were recovered in a 0.5 mm mesh sieve for seeds, fruits and anthracological analysis. The charcoal fragments were studied later with a reflective microscope in the laboratory, where taxa were determined with the help of atlases (Schweingruber 1990; Benkova and Schweingruber 2004).

Table 1 – List of the contexts studied in the framework of the anthracological analysis.

Context Sample number Stratigraphic Unit (SU)
Bricks collapse KCT035 G9-139
Filling KCT044 G9-129
Roof collapse KCT049 G9-141
KCT050
Floors KCT083 G9-152

A. Decaix.

Building 21 at Kiçik Tepe: archaeological evidence and archaeobotanical data

17Building 21 is oval-shaped and measures 2.6-3 m. The western part has been damaged by modern activities unlike the eastern part which has retained up to 1.4 m in height and 19-21 cm in width for the wall, depending on the thickness of the coating. The mud-bricks used for construction contain straw temper added to the clay and are parallelepipedic in shape. They are regular (39-41×17×9 cm), with straight edges and sharp corners. The wall was erected in a single row of stretchers with a slight batter to the north and an inner batter to the south. This slanting of the wall face is not intentional but is consistent with the damage occurring after the building’s abandonment and its collapse on itself in the southwestern part. No doors or windows have been identified. Unfortunately, the eastern part of the wall and its upper filling were damaged and cut out by a later silo.

18Two successive floor levels (SU G9-147 and G9-152) have been identified. The latest hosts a circular arrangement 10 cm in diameter and 5 cm in height located in the eastern part of the building. This arrangement features a flat bottom and is partly covered by a clay flared roll (fig. 5). This was initially interpreted as the base for a roof-post but, owing to its shape, it might also have been the base for a storage container made of perishable material.

Fig. 5 – Detail of the circular arrangement in the last floor level.

Fig. 5 – Detail of the circular arrangement in the last floor level.

Mission Boyuk Kesik

19In Building 21, the seeds and fruits analysis from the soil samples identified various cereals (wheats, barley) and pulses (lentil). Wild plants are also present in the assemblage, most of which are probably crop weeds (Heliotropium sp., Poaceae, Trigonella sp.; Palumbi et al. 2021: 10). Mugwort (Artemisia sp.) inflorescences are especially well represented (ca. 85% of the wild plants) and could have been used as a fungicide or insecticide (Rivera et al. 2011: 289-296), as previously suggested at Göy Tepe and Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe (Akashi et al. 2018: 85-86). The presence of burnt remains of this plant in storage bins at nearby Göy Tepe was interpreted as an intentional solution to preserve cereals from insects (Kadowaki et al. 2015: 422). This may suggest that Building 21 was especially used as a storage area for perishable commodities. At the current state of the analysis, mugwort seeds and inflorescences have been exclusively found in the samples from phase 3. Inflorescences are found in samples from the fallen roof (mainly SU G8-136) and in a layer of burnt vegetal remains (SU G9-141). Seeds are found essentially in hearth 6 (SU H8-24) of Building 2.

20Several levels of abandonment covered the floor to a thickness of 20-30 cm, evidence suggesting that the fire affecting the building took place after an initial phase of abandonment. Indeed, a layer of charred vegetation (fig. 4), burnt earth, and accidentally fired bricks (SU G9-141) preserved for more than 30 cm on the sides (fig. 4c) lay directly over the abandonment layers. Given the archaeological data, the fire seems to have affected mainly the roof and the upper part of the walls. However, the fire impact is also visible on the inner coating (fig. 4b). Charred plant remains were found under the bricks and in the centre of the deposit mixed with burnt earth and much gravel. In the centre, the fallen roof’s charred elements found in situ illustrate the roof’s layout (below; fig. 4a). Additionally, fragments of burnt soil contained twig impressions pointing in two directions (fig. 6a-d), as well as imprints of branches 1.5-2 cm in diameter (fig. 6e-g), and larger pieces of wood 6-12 cm in diameter (fig. 6h-m). A layer of collapsed mud-bricks over 30-40 cm covered this burnt level (SU G9-136; fig. 7). The backfill (about 2.9 m3) partly corresponds to the collapse of the wall after the fire.

Fig. 6 – Fragments of burnt soil with twig impressions (a-b), imprints of branches (c-e) and imprints of pieces of wood (f-k).

Fig. 6 – Fragments of burnt soil with twig impressions (a-b), imprints of branches (c-e) and imprints of pieces of wood (f-k).

E. Baudouin

Fig. 7 – Upper mud-brick collapse in building 21.

Fig. 7 – Upper mud-brick collapse in building 21.

Mission Boyuk Kesik.

21The anthracological study involving 200 charcoal fragments (table 1) led to the identification of four taxa (fig. 8a-b): dogwood (Cornus sp.), ash (Fraxinus sp.), poplar/willow (Populus/Salix) and pistachio (Pistacia sp.).

Fig. 8 – Anthracological results.

Fig. 8 – Anthracological results.

a. Distribution of the identified taxa according to contexts; b. Taxa identified in Kiçik Tepe. i. Cornus sp., radial; ii. Fraxinus sp., transverse; iii. Pistacia sp., transverse; iv. Populus/Salix, transverse.

A. Decaix

22In the Stratigraphic Units composing the roof (G9-141) and brick collapses (G9-136), numerous twigs were present but could not be specifically identified. In contrast, small twigs of about 1.5-2 cm in diameter were found to be mainly from dogwood.

23Though few anthracological studies have been carried out in the region, the taxa identified at Kiçik Tepe are nevertheless regularly documented at other Neolithic sites. Poplar/willow and ash are common trees in the riparian zone and have been identified at Mentesh Tepe (Decaix et al. 2016: 21) or Göy Tepe (Decaix unpublished). At the latter sites, dogwood is also identified. These species are also attested at Aruchlo (Neef et al. 2017: 374). Ash is also present at Kamiltepe-MPS 1 in the Mil Plain (Neef et al. 2017: 376). Pistachio is common at Kültepe I (Nakhichevan) in the Araxes Valley (Decaix 2016: 273-274) and is characteristic of open formations still dominant nowadays (Gabrielian and Fragman-Sapir 2008: 20).

An architectural reconstruction of Building 21 at Kiçik Tepe

24According to archaeological data, we have to consider 20 courses of Building 21, corresponding to a height of 1.4 m, for a building’s size of about 2.6-3 m, and a collapsed layer 0.5 m thick inside the building, i.e. an area of 6.4 m2. Based on theoretical research in architecture, we assume that about one-third of the wall collapsed outside the building (Margueron 1987) and that the roof overhang was 30 cm all around the building to avoid rainwater run-off at the foot of the wall (Houben et al. 2006: 279). Based on this evidence, the overall height of this building was c. 2.9 m (table 2). Given the preserved walls’ height, we assume there must have been a doorway located to the south, where the building was damaged. Concerning the existence of windows, which are documented at Göy Tepe (Nishiaki et al. 2020a: fig. 3.30, 37), we hypothesize that the doorway was the only entry for the light given the building’s small surface area and the fact that its function was probably storage, requiring a limited amount of light for optimal preservation of perishable goods (Aurenche et al. 1997: 97).

Table 2 – Measurements of Building 21 for restitution of elevations

External diameter (in m) 3×3.4
Overall surface area (in m2) 8.3
Internal diameter (in m) 2.6×3
Usable surface area (in m2) 6.4
Height of the preserved mud-brick wall (in m) 1.4
Height of the preserved collapse layer (in m) 0.5
Overall volume of the building (in m3) 11.6
Usable volume of the building (in m3) 8.9
Volume of the preserved mud-brick wall (in m3) 2.7
Volume of the collapse layer inside the building (in m3) 3.2
Presumed overall volume of the collapse layer (in m3) 4.3
Presumed thickness of the flat roof (in m) 0.3
Presumed volume of the flat roof (in m3) 3.6
Presumed volume of the collapse (mud-bricks and roof; in m3) 7.9
Presumed volume of the collapsed mud-brick wall (in m3) 5.5
Presumed height of missing elevation (in m) 1.2
Presumed height of overall elevation (in m) 2.9

E. Baudouin

25Finally, concerning the roof, results from the macroscopic study of architecture, the position and quantity of the charcoal remains, and the plant imprints on earth fragments, the evidence suggests the use of mixed mud and wood for the roof, which must have been more than 10 cm thick. Only a few elements give a glimpse of the materials used for the covering, due to the severe deterioration of the remains which made them difficult to distinguish systematically from the rest of the collapse during the excavation. The vegetal framework consists of two perpendicular twigs beds – as is visible on the clay fragments (fig. 6a-d) – and two perpendicular branches (dogwood?) beds oriented north/south and east/west. Unfortunately, the fragile collapsed remains and the charcoal remains partly mixed with roof soil do not allow us to propose a plan for the imprints’ organization and distribution.

26In light of the data presented here, we can rule out the hypothesis of an earthen domed roof. The wall, preserved to a sufficient height, does not display a batter inside; the charred plant remains, and imprints testify to the use of a timber frame, not only of earthen material. We also rule out the hypothesis of a roof made solely of light materials resting on support posts (conical?) because the building does not seem to have a system of support posts. Furthermore, the orientation of charred plant remains was not set in a radial or polyhedron frame. Finally, concerning the domed roof, mud as filling lends itself rather poorly to this type of reconstruction.

27We propose that Building 21’s roof at Kiçik Tepe was flat (fig. 9) and rested on a wooden framework made of poplar/willow and ash selected for their solidity and size. We cannot reconstruct the wooden framework’s organisation with certainty, but some fragments indicate a north/south orientation. The model of a rectangular framework intended to reduce roof spans, similar to the one known for the circular Neolithic buildings of Khirokitia in Cyprus (Daune-Le Brun 2001: 68-69) cannot be excluded. However, it is important to bear in mind that a span under 3 m does not represent a technical constraint and that trees of this size were probably available in the area (see above).

Fig. 9 – Proposal for the restitution of Building 2.

Fig. 9 – Proposal for the restitution of Building 2.

a. General view and detail of roof organisation; b. Section of Building 21.

M. Brunacci

The question of the Neolithic buildings’ roofing in the South Caucasus

28For a long time, the domed roof was the preferred hypothesis of reconstruction for the circular Neolithic buildings of the South Caucasus, as it was proposed at Gadachrili Gora, where almost complete domes were found (Dzhavakhishvili 1973: 73) and at Shulaveris Gora (Dzhavakhishvili 1973: 20, 210). At this latter site, A. Dzhavakhishvili reconstructed domes based on his observations of buildings preserved up to 2 m in height (table 3). An inward overhang of bricks of 2-3 cm per course forms a constant inner batter from the base onwards, and an interior and exterior coating covers the whole structure for a total thickness of 20-30 cm. This detailed description seems unlikely to us, given the diameter of the cells (2-5.3 m), which implies a slope of the wall between 24 and 45° that is far above the recommendations in traditional corbelled vaults that are in the order of 10-15° (Houben et al. 2006: 290). According to Azimov (2006: 30), similar interpretations were proposed for Shomu Tepe (Narimanov 1965) based on erroneous archaeological data. Long taken for granted and uncritically reiterated, these interpretations were further suggested for other sites such as at Imiris Gora (Dzhavakhishvili and Dzhaparidze 1975; Kiguradze 1986: 37) or Babadervish (fig. 10-c) where post-holes (Azimov 2006: 31-31) suggest a flat or pitched roof instead. Recently, a dome-shaped roof was proposed to reconstruct Building 1 at Aknashen (Armenia) because “no evidence exists for the presence of a support for a flat covering, such as little ditches or even stone bases” (Badalyan and Harutyunyan 2022: 37). Archaeologists observed a decrease in thickness of the walls from 60 cm at the base up to 25-28 cm. However, the publication did not specify the preservation height, the existence of an inner batter, or the thickness and the composition of the collapse layer. A. Sagona also proposed a similar view recently (2018: 101), underlining the recurrence of the inner batter in the Neolithic architecture and the scarcity of intermediate load-bearing supports pointing to alternative covering.

Table 3 – The roofing proposals in the South Caucasus.

Table 3 – The roofing proposals in the South Caucasus.

Circle: no specified ; triangle: not applicable.

E. Baudouin

Fig. 10 – Different roofing proposals

Fig. 10 – Different roofing proposals

a. Reconstruction of Shomu Tepe (after Munchaev 1975: fig. 4); b. Reconstruction of Shomu Tepe (after Azimov 2006: fig. 37); c. Reconstruction of Baba Dervish (after Azimov 2006: fig. 47); d. Imiris Gora, axionometry of building 8.9-10 (after Kiguradze 1986: fig. 23); e. Restitution of a building at Chalagantepe with the polyhedron-shape roof (after Azimov 2006: fig. 25); f-g. Detail of a conical roof in a wooden frame from a modern dwelling at As-Eyla (Djibouti; E. Baudouin); h. General view of a modern dwelling at As-Eyla (Djibouti; E. Baudouin).

29A variety of roofing solutions, including flat or pitched roofs, was already put forward in previous studies (Dzhavakhishvili and Dzhaparidze 1975: 206; Kiguradze 1986: 70; Narimanov 1992: 32). For example, at Gargalartepesi, the combination of a constant thickness of rectilinear walls (Azimov 2006: 29) without inner batter and preserved over a height of 2 m in Building 12 and the presence of burned mats imprints in Structure 1 (Narimanov 1992: 16, 20), makes it possible to restore a flat roof. Similar proposals were made at Toïre Tepe (Narimanov 1992: 16) and for Building 9-10 at Imiris Gora (Kiguradze 1986: 37; fig. 10d), where a central post-hole suggests the existence of a flat or pitched roof. Finally, in some cases, like at Shomutepe, the lack of archaeological data led to reconstructions based solely on ground plans. They proposed flat, domed (fig. 10a; Munchaev 1975: fig. 4) or conical roofs (fig. 10b; Azimov 2006: fig. 37) without archaeological evidence to justify any of the proposed solutions.

30However, F. Guliyev and Y. Nishiaki (2014: 6), S. Hansen and M. Ullrich (2017: 203) recently refuted the dome hypothesis because of the thinness of the walls. Furthermore, the presence of post-holes seems to be frequent, for instance, at Shomu Tepe (Narimanov 1987), Khramis Didi Gora (Kiguradze 1986: 70), Göy Tepe (Nishiaki et al. 2020a: 36) and Aruchlo (Hansen and Ullrich 2017: 203) where reconstructions prioritize a wooden or thatched roof with a flat or pitched shape (Munchaev 1982). At Aruchlo, the presence of reeds and wood imprints in a burned layer – unfortunately not associated directly with a construction – could suggest a flat roof (Ioseliani 2017: 282). Azimov (2006: 31) proposes another solution at Chalagantepe for large buildings (more than 1.5 m in diameter); he suggests a central post with a polyhedron-shape framework for the roof (fig. 10e). Based on a technical point of view, this shape seems to refer to traditional architecture (tukul) from East Africa (Ethiopia, Sudan, Djibouti; fig. 10h) where circular buildings are covered with a conical roof in a radiating wooden frame supported by a central post (fig. 10f-g). A variant to these conical roofs was proposed at Mentesh Tepe, where a series of post-holes on the inner perimeter of the building and an imprint left by a central post make it possible to restore a conical roof of perishable materials. In this case, we supposed that the mud-brick perimeter wall functioned as a curtain wall (Baudouin 2019: 141).

31More recently, an increase in archaeological evidence integrated with a literature review allows for a large variety of roofing solutions (fig. 11).

Fig. 11 – Roofing proposals in the South Caucasus in the Neolithic period.

Fig. 11 – Roofing proposals in the South Caucasus in the Neolithic period.

E. Baudouin

32How did archaeologists interpret this diversity? To our knowledge, no mention in the literature attempts to link the variability of the roofing solutions with the function of the buildings themselves or to environmental and/or cultural factors. However, according to Azimov (2006: 31) and Nishiaki et al. (2020a: 36), it is possible that these were technical differences generating specific solutions depending on the size of the buildings. According to the authors, while small ones (less than 1.5 m in diameter) may have had a dome-shaped roof “that needed no supporting feature” (Azimov 2006: 31), the larger ones had intermediate posts, suggesting the hypothesis of a conical or flat roof.

Roofing in perspective: archaeological, ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological comparisons

The issue of roofing in circular buildings of the Halaf culture (Mesopotamia, 6th millennium BCE)

33Some authors considered that groups from North Mesopotamia, especially during the Halaf period (6100-5400 BCE), played a role in forming the contemporaneous AShSh (Munchaev 1975: 116-119, 1982: 113). Findings of sporadic imported painted Halaf ceramics suggesting relationships between the AShSh and the North Mesopotamian communities (Harutyunyan 2022: 94-97) justify this hypothesis. The Halaf and AShSh communities were, therefore, contemporary. In this section of the paper, we would like to introduce a comparison with the Halafian circular architecture, as the latter was also at the centre of a debate on roofing forms and techniques similar to the one just discussed in the South Caucasus.

34Based on research carried out in the 1930s at Tell Arpachiyah (Mallowan and Cruikshank 1935: 28), it has long been accepted that the characteristic Halaf circular architecture, the tholos, was covered by a domed roof, by analogy with the ‘beehive’ villages of northern Syria and south-eastern Anatolia (Copeland 1955: 21). Yet, as P. Akkermans explains, “it is doubtful whether this perspective is correct. Not only is there no historical relationship whatsoever between the two forms of architecture, but the archaeological evidence [such as impressions of reeds and wooden poles at Tell Sabi Abyad] itself suggests either a flat or a pitched roof made of timber and reeds rather than a beehive shaped mud brick cover” (Akkermans 2010: 26).

35While some scholars do not question the possibility of a domed roof for the Halaf (Merpert et al. 1976: 45; Tsuneki 1998: 174), others suggest a diversity of roofing forms on the grounds of archaeological evidence (table 4). At Tell Sabi Abyad, archaeologists reconstructed circular buildings with a dome-shaped roof based on an inward curve of the wall in Buildings 8.1, 8.4 and 7.5 (Akkermans et al. 2014: 36, 40, 52). Nevertheless, based on the photographic documentation, one finds it difficult to support this hypothesis (Akkermans et al. 2014: 36, fig. 2.3, 53, fig. 2.17). They also proposed a flat roof in tholos IX on the base of straight walls and wood and reeds imprints discovered (Verhoeven and Kranendonk 1996: 61, 77) and/or a conical roof in Building 7.2 by restoring a central wooden post (Akkermans et al. 2014: 52). The existence of a wedge stone intended to support a central post (Becker and Wickede 2018: 25) has led to the hypothesis of a wooden (conical?) roof at Çavi Tarlası also, and, at Fıstıklı Höyük, the restoration of a conical roof made of only organic material is also favoured (Bernbeck et al. 2003: 27). However, in both cases, the lack of archaeological data such as the preserved height or thickness of the collapse layer does not allow for a reliable interpretation. As for the hypothetic evolution of the roof shape during the Halaf period, namely the disappearance of the dome in favour of the flat roof (Breniquet 1996: 85), it cannot be demonstrated at the present state of knowledge.

Table 4 – The roofing proposals in the Halaf culture in Mesopotamia.

Table 4 – The roofing proposals in the Halaf culture in Mesopotamia.

Circle: no specified.

E. Baudouin

Environment, culture and ethnicity: the contribution of ethnography and ethnoarchaeology

36According to ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological data, the buildings’ vault is chosen based on environmental factors – understood as both ecological and economic (Besenval 1984: 168). Architectural studies show that the dome technique is documented in northern Syria and southern Turkey since the eighteenth century (Banse 1911). It is economical in terms of timber, particularly for corbelled domes and sloping bases (Houben et al. 2006), which did not need formwork. The scarcity of wood in the building’s close vicinity is often a meaningful environmental constraint encouraging the use of vaulting (Besenval 1984: 168) as in the vernacular architecture in the Khorassan region of north-eastern Iran (Kleiss 2015: 1). In Central Asia vaulting was favoured in the past because it is highly resistant to earthquakes, as in the Turan plateau (Baimatova 2008: 121). Vaulting also lends itself to a warm and dry climate as it provides good thermal insulation in Iran (Bahadori 1978) and good ventilation for cooling the house in Syria (Tsuneki 1998: 174). According to ethnographic studies, these two factors are considered paramount. They clearly predominate over sociocultural factors, such as ethnicity, as documented (see below) in northern Afghanistan (Dupaigne 1968: 60) and the Aleppo region in northern Syria (Copeland 1955: 21; Tsuneki 1998: 174-176).

  • 4 The value of 3 m spans represented a technical constraint as early as the PPNA-PPNB, as evidenced (...)

37There is also mention of economic factors because of the low cost of earthen material and the easy implementation of this type of roofing (Besenval 1984: 168; Tsuneki 1998: 174). Finally, ethnographic data provide details on the organization of the work, the layout techniques, and the lifespan of the vaults. In northern Afghanistan, estimates are that it takes about two hours to cover a 2.5×6 m room with a vault whose estimated life span is 30-40 years (Dupaigne 1968: 60) compared to 70-90 years in North Syria (Sweet 1974: 114). Ethnographic studies of Nubian masons (Houben et al. 1995: 286) show that lighter, straw-filled bricks are sometimes preferred for such constructions. Ten days of work carried out after the spring rains are required for a 6 m diameter dome made of 4,000 bricks 25×15×5 cm. As a brick weighs about 3 kg, estimations are that the dome weighs about 12,500 kg, or 440kg/m2. Furthermore, recent studies reveal that the need for dome repair and the absence of wood to strengthen the structure has led to the current disappearance of this type of construction in favour of the flat roof, deemed more weather-resistant (Tsuneki 1998: 176). The ethnographic documentation shows that flat roofs are the most suitable solution for a warm climate with little rainfall. There are examples of the use of the flat roof in most of the Near East (Kramer 1982: 91; Aurenche et al. 1997: 127). For the construction of a flat roof, preference goes to local wood species: poplar, willow or tamarisk in Anatolia (Aurenche et al. 1997: 129); palm, and sometimes mulberry and apricot in Iran (Rouholamini 1973: 257). The roof spans that need covering are generally short, under 3 m (Houben et al. 2006: 276), for rooms up to 2.6 m wide. For larger rooms, the use of posts is necessary4. The construction of the flat roof is quite similar throughout the Near East: successive layers of heterogeneous materials – reeds, branches, packed earth, stones – covering the beams at the top of the wall, for a total estimated weight of 500kg/m2 (Ragette 1974: 22). As to other roofing possibilities, the best-known ethnographic examples of vernacular architecture with a sloping roof made of light materials (straw, reeds, thatch) are mainly located in the subtropical plains of Iran and Azerbaijan along the Caspian Sea in the provinces of Gilan and Mazanderan (Kleiss 2015: 3). In these regions, the abundance of wood favours its use in houses built on piles (Morgan 1894: 103; Gabriel and Gabriel 1935: 175; Wulff 1966: 102).

  • 5 Translation: “is at once the most apparent and the most typical of the ethnic features”
  • 6 Such differences in roofing within a similar environment are documented in Chad where the main hou (...)

38Dome-shaped, flat roofs or pitched and conical roofs can be related to different practicalities determined by environmental conditions. However, beyond ecological and economic issues we would like to highlight that, as already emphasized by A. Leroi-Gourhan, the house “est à la fois le plus apparent et le plus personnel des traits ethniques” (Leroi-Gourhan 1973)5. According to R. Besenval (1984: 168), socio-cultural factors can be decisive in constructing houses and shaping roofs, provided that all other requirements linked to the environment (ecological, economic) are met6. In the same vein, recent works highlight the social value placed on roofing in the Mandara Highlands in Cameroon (Chétima 2019) and the fact that it is possible to correlate roof construction techniques with cultural identities in eastern Senegal (Pelmoine and Mayor 2020). In the latter case, the roof represents a marker of identity, where each ethnic group is identified based on the materials used, the frame’s structure, and the roof’s shape.

39To conclude, ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological studies show that environmental factors (ecological and economic) play a major role in the roof layout. The main elements affecting the roof layout are raw materials’ availability, cost, and suitability to environmental conditions. However, these studies also highlight that the social factor can overlap with the environmental factor. In other words, roofing (shape and technique) can also result from what Deffontaines (1972: 84) calls “historical and social conditioning”, which is a discrete, but pervasive factor in every community. The roof is not only a powerful symbol of the house (Rapoport 1969: 134), but the “house” is a “roof” because its layout is the most significant part of the building activity (Deffontaines 1972: 62).

Discussions

40The multidisciplinary research results allowed us to propose a flat roof reconstruction for Building 21 at Kiçik Tepe. These data and those collected and discussed above demonstrate that flat roofs may have been a common architectural tradition in the South Caucasus. They highlight that a wide variety of roofs may have been characteristic of Neolithic circular buildings, perhaps even among buildings in the same region or even in the same settlement.

41According to archaeological and ethnographic observations, this diversity may be more the result of technical requirements determined by the size of the buildings rather than their functions. However, it cannot be ruled out that size, function and shape of the roof are directly related. We have also underlined the importance of environmental (ecological and economic) factors in determining the roof’s materials and shape. It is worth mentioning, however, that in the Neolithic South Caucasus it appears that roofs of different shapes were built in what seems to be a similar environment. These similar environmental conditions make it worth considering R. Besenval’s suggestions (1984: 168) that the socio-cultural factor could have played a significant role in the diversity of the roofing and that it could be even privileged over the others in this type of situation.

42Therefore, our hypothesis, which we aim to substantiate with new data from Kiçik Tepe, is that the recurrent diversity of roofs in the Southern Caucasus could mirror “social or cultural” meanings perhaps embedded in different building practices. On these matters, E. Wenger (1998: 3) highlights the dialectic occurring between building practices and learning processes and the fact that both actively participate in the definition of communities of practice, in the construction of senses of membership and, lastly, in the formation and development of social identities. In the same vein, although it remains a working hypothesis at the current state of knowledge, we cannot exclude that house roofing (as a result of different building and learning practices) could have actively contributed to marking some differences between Neolithic families, groups and communities in the South Caucasus.

43The phenomenon of local traditions fuelled by a daily transmission of technical knowledge at inter- and intra-community levels has also been recently demonstrated for pottery traditions (Iserlis 2021: 133). These differences have actively participated in the constitution of the AShSh cultural tradition which, in light of the architectural evidence, appears now to be a much more regionalised tradition than previously assumed. Therefore, the data presented in this work seem to highlight that, rather than displaying “real unity between the sites of the basins of the Araxes and the Kura” (Badalyan et al. 2022b: 260), the Neolithic AShSh was more probably a cultural mosaic expressing both regional and local diversities (Baudouin 2019: 146).

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Abibullaev O. 1959 – Arkheologicheskiye raskopki v Kyul-Tepe [Archaeological excavations at Kyul Tepe]. Baku: s.n.

Akashi C., Tanno K., Guliyev F. and Nishiaki Y. 2018 – Neolithisation processes of the South Caucasus: As viewed from macro-botanical analyses at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, West Azerbaijan. Paléorient 44,2: 75‑89.

Akkermans P. M. M. G. 2010 – Late Neolithic Architectural Renewal: The Emergence of Round Houses in the Northern Levant, c. 6500-6000 BCE. In: Bolger D. and Maguire L. C. (eds.), The Development of Pre-State Communities in the Ancient Near East: 22-28. Oxford: Oxbow (Oxbow Books 2).

Akkermans P. M. M. G., Brüning M., Huigens H. and Nieuwenhuyse O. 2014 – Excavations at Late Neolithic Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria: The 1994-1999 Field Seasons. Brepols: Turnhout (Papers on Archaeology of the Leiden Museum of Antiquities 11).

Amirkhanov K. A. 1987 – Choskoe poselenie. Chelovek i ego kul’tura v mezolite i neolite gornogo Dagestana [The Chokh settlement. Men and culture in the Mesolithic and Neolithic of mountainous Dagestan]. Moscow: Nauka.

Aurenche O. 1981 – La maison orientale : l’architecture du Proche-Orient ancien des origines au milieu du quatrième millénaire. Paris: P. Geuthner (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 109).

Aurenche O., Bazin M. and Sadler S. 1997 – Villages engloutis : enquête ethnoarchéologique à Cafer Höyük (vallée de l’Euphrate). Lyon-Paris: Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen-De Boccard (Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen 26).

Azimov M. S. 2006 – Architectural Development in the Earliest Settled Agricultural Phases of Azerbaijan. Oxford: Archaeopress (BAR International series 1467).

Badalyan R., Chataigner C. and Harutyunyan A. (eds.) 2022a – The Neolithic Settlement of Aknashen (Ararat valley, Armenia). Excavation seasons 2004-2015. Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology.

Badalyan R., Chataigner C. and Harutyunyan A. 2022b – Conclusion: The Neolithic of the Ararat valley and the South Caucasus. In: Badalyan R., Chataigner C. and Harutyunyan A. (eds.), The Neolithic Settlement of Aknashen (Ararat valley, Armenia). Excavation seasons 2004-2015: 257-283. Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology.

Badalyan R. and Harutyunyan A. 2022 – The settlement of Aknashen: stratigraphy and architecture. In: Badalyan R., Chataigner C. and Harutyunyan A. (eds.), The Neolithic Settlement of Aknashen (Ararat valley, Armenia). Excavation seasons 2004-2015 : 9-38. Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology.

Bahadori M. 1978 – Les systèmes de refroidissement passifs dans l’architecture iranienne. Pour la Science 6: 14-23.

Baimatova N. S. 2008 – 5000 Jahre Architektur in Mittelasien: Lehmziegelwölbe vom 4./3. Jt. Chr. bis zum Ende des 8. Jhs. n. Chr. Mainz am Rheim: P. von Zabern (Archäologie in Iran und Turan 7).

Banse E. 1911 – Die Gubab-Hütten Nordsyriens und Nordwestmesopotamiens. Orientales Archiv 2: 173‑179.

Baudouin E. 2019 – Rethinking Architectural Techniques of Southern Caucasus in the 6th millennium BCE: A Re-Examination of Former Data and New Insights. Paléorient 45,1: 115‑150, doi:10.4000/paleorient.602

Baudouin E. 2021 – L’architecture de Mésopotamie et du Caucase de la fin du 7e à la fin du 5e millénaire. Turnhout: Brepols Publishers (ARAXES II).

Becker J. and Wickede A. von 2018 – Çavi Tarlası: Identität und Kontakt am Beispiel eines spätneolithischen Fundplatzes der Halaf-Zeit. Berlin: Ex Oriente (Bibliotheca neolithica Asiae meridionalis et occidentalis).

Benecke N. 2017 – Exploitation of Animal Resources in Neolithic Settlements of the Kura Region (South Caucasia). In: Helwing B., Aliyev T., Lyonnet B., Guliyev F., Hansen S. and Mirtskhulava G. (eds.), The Kura Projects: New Research on the Late Prehistory of the Southern Caucasus: 357‑369. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag (Archäologie in Iran und Turan 16).

Benkova V. E. and Schweingruber F. H. 2004 – Anatomy of Russian wood. An atlas for the identification of tree, shrubs, dwarf shrubs and woody lianas from Russia. Brimensdorf-Bern-Stuttgart-Wien: Swiss Federal Institute for Forest-Snow-Landscape Research.

Bernbeck R., Pollock S., Allen S., Castro A. G., Keilt Costello S., Costello R., Foree M., Gleva M., Godwin M., Lepinski S., Nakamura C. and Niebuhr S. 2003 – The Biography of an early Halaf Village: Fıstıklı Höyük 1999-2000, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 53: 9-77.

Berthon R. 2014 – Past, Current and Future Contribution of Zooarchaeology to the Knowledge of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Cultures in South Caucasus. Studies in Caucasian Archaeology 2: 4‑30.

Besenval R. 1984 – Technologie de la voûte dans l’Orient Ancien. Paris: Recherche sur les civilisations (Recherche sur les civilisations 15).

Bourdieu P. 1980 – Le sens pratique. Paris: Éd. de Minuit.

Breniquet C. 1996 – La disparition de la culture de Halaf. Les origines de la culture d’Obeid dans le Nord de la Mésopotamie. Paris: Éd. Recherche sur les civilisations (Bibliothèque de la Délégation archéologique française en Iraq 9).

Chataigner C., Badalyan R. and Arimura M. 2014 – The Neolithic of the Caucasus. Oxford Handbook Online: 1-25, doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935413.013.13.

Chataigner C., Badalyan R. and Harutyunyan A. 2022 – Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates from Aknashen. In: Badalyan R., Chataigner C. and Harutyunyan A. (eds.), The Neolithic Settlement of Aknashen (Ararat valley, Armenia). Excavation seasons 2004-2015: 67-81. Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology.

Chétima M. 2019 – Beyond Ethnic Boundaries: Architectural Practices and Social Identity in the Mandara Highlands, Cameroon. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 29,1: 45-63.

Copeland P. 1955 – “Beehive” villages of North Syria. Antiquity 22: 21-24.

Coudart A. 1998 – Architecture et société néolithique : l’unité et la variance de la maison danubienne. Paris: Maison des sciences de l’homme (Documents d’archéologie française 67).

Dainville de J. 1948 – Habitations et types de peuplement sur la rive occidentale du Lac Tchad. La Revue de Géographie Humaine et d’Ethnologie 1,2: 59-69.

Daune-Le Brun O. 2001 – Les constructions du village néolithique de Khirokitia, Chypre, reconstitution et expérimentation : premier bilan d’une expérience. In: Belarte M. C., Pou J. and Santacana J. (eds.), Tecniques constructives d’epoca iberica I experimentacio arquitectonica a la Mediterrania: 59-73. Barcelona: Area d’Arqueologia, Universitat de Barcelona (Arqueo Mediterrania 6).

Decaix A. unpublished – Preliminary results on the archaeobotanical analysis of Goy Tepe (campaign 2019).

Decaix A. 2016 – Origine et évolution des économies agricoles dans le sud du Caucase : recherches archéobotaniques dans le bassin Kuro-Araxe. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne.

Decaix A., Messager E., Tengberg M., Neef R., Lyonnet B. and Guliyev F. 2016 – Vegetation and plant exploitation at Mentesh Tepe (Azerbaijan), 6th-3rd millennium BCE initial results of the archaeobotanical study. Quaternary International 395: 19‑30, doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2015.02.050.

Deffontaines P. 1972 – L’homme et sa maison. Paris: Gallimard (Géographie Humaine).

Deffontaines P. 1975 – La Méditerranée catalane. Paris: Presses universitaires de France (Que sais-je ? 1609).

Dupaigne B. 1968 – Aperçus sur quelques techniques afghanes. Objets et Mondes, tome VIII, fasc. 1: 41-84.

Dzhavakhishvili A. I. 1973 – Stroitel’noe delo i arkhitektura poselenii Yuzhnogo Kavkaza V-III tys. do n.e [Buildings and architecture of settlements in Southern Caucasia, 5th-3rd mill. BCEE]. Tbilisi: Metsniereba.

Dzhavakhishvili A. I. and Dzhaparidze O. M. 1975 – Otchet Kvemo-Kartlijskoy arkheologicheskoj ekspeditsii (1965-1971gg.) [Report of the archaeological expedition of Kvemo-Kartli (1965/1971)]. Tbilisi: Metsniereba.

Flannery K. V. 2002 – The origins of the village revisited: From nuclear to extend households. American Antiquity 67,3: 417-433.

Gabriel A. and Gabriel A. K. 1935 – Durch Persiens Wüsten: neue Wanderungen in den Trockenräumen Innerirans. Stuttgart: Strecker und Schröder.

Gabrielian E. and Fragman-Sapir O. 2008 – Flowers of the Transcaucasus and adjacent areas: including Armenia, Eastern Turkey, Southern Georgia, Azerbaijan and Northern Iran. Ruggell: A. R. G. Gantner Verlag.

Guliyev F. and Nishiaki Y. 2014 – Excavations at the Neolithic Settlement of Göytepe, West Azerbajan 2010-2011. In: Bielinski P., Gawlikowski M., Kolinsk R., Lawecka D., Soltysiak A. and Wygnanska Z. (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. 30 April-4 May 2012, University of Warsaw, vol. II: Excavation and Progress Reports Posters: 3‑16. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

Foster C. P. 2009 – Household Archaeology and the Uruk Phenomenon: a case study from Kenan Tepe, Turkey, unpublished PhD dissertation. Berkley: University of California.

Hansen S., Mirtskhulava G. and Bastert-Lamprichs K. 2013 – Neolithic Settlements of the 6th millennium cal. BC in the Southern Caucasus. In: Nieuwenhuyse O. P., Bernbeck R., Akkermans P. M. M. G. and Rogasch J., Interpreting the Late Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia: 387-396. Turnhout: Brepols.

Hansen S. and Ullrich M. 2017 – Excavations at Aruchlo. Preliminary report on the 2012-2014 campaigns. In: Helwing B., Aliyev T., Lyonnet B., Guliyev F., Hansen S. and Mirtskhulava G. (eds.), The Kura Projects: New Research on the Late Prehistory of the Southern Caucasus: 201‑222. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag (Archäologie in Iran und Turan 16).

Harutyunyan A. 2022 – The pottery of Aknashen. In: Badalyan R., Chataigner C. and Harutyunyan A. (eds.), The Neolithic Settlement of Aknashen (Ararat valley, Armenia). Excavation seasons 2004-2015: 82-105. Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology.

Helwing B., Aliyev T., Lyonnet B., Guliyev F., Hansen S. and Mirtskhulava G. (eds.) 2017 – The Kura Projects: New Research on the Late Prehistory of the Southern Caucasus. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag (Archäologie in Iran und Turan 16).

Houben H., Guillaud H., Dayre M. and Centre de recherche et d’application pour la construction en terre de l’Isère 1995 – Traité de construction en terre. Marseille: Éd. Parenthèses (2nd edition).

Houben H., Guillaud H., Dayre M. and Centre de recherche et d’application pour la construction en terre de l’Isère 2006 – Traité de construction en terre. Marseille: Éd. Parenthèses (3rd edition).

Ioseliani V. 2017 – Architecture Debris from the Burnt Layers. In: Helwing B., Aliyev T., Lyonnet B., Guliyev F., Hansen S. and Mirtskhulava G. (eds.), The Kura Projects: New Research on the Late Prehistory of the Southern Caucasus: 281‑286. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag (Archäologie in Iran und Turan 16).

Iserlis M. 2021 – Technological Choices and Socio-Cultural Landscapes in the Southern Caucasus during the Neolithization Processes (6th mill. BCE). Eurasia Antiqua 23: 117-136.

Joannin S., Ali A., Ollivier V., Roiron P., Peyron O., Chevaux S., Nahapetyan S., Tozalakyan P., Karakhanyan A. and Chataigner C. 2014 – Vegetation, fire and climate history of the lesser Caucasus: a new Holocene record from Zarishat fen (Armenia). Journal of Quaternary Science 29: 70-82.

Kadowaki S., Maher L., Portillo M., Albert R. M., Akashi C., Guliyev F. and Nishiaki Y. 2015 – Geoarchaeological and palaeobotanical evidence for prehistoric cereal storage in the southern Caucasus: the Neolithic settlement of Göytepe (mid 8th millennium BP). Journal of Archaeological Science 53: 408-425.

Kadowaki S., Guliyev F., Alakbarov V., Miki T., Shimogama K. and Nishiaki Y. 2021 – Chapter 2. Excavations, occupational history, and built environments at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe. In: Nishiaki Y., Guliyev F. and Kadowaki S. (ed.), Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe. The Archaeological Investigations of an Early Neolithic Settlement in West Azerbaijan: 7-58. Berlin: Ex Oriente (Bibliotheca Neolithica Asiae Meridionalis et Occidentalis).

Kent S. 1990 – Chapter 9. A cross-cultural study of segmentation, architecture, and the use of space. In: Kent S. (ed.), Domestic architecture and the use of space. An interdisciplinary cross-cultural study: 127-152. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kiguradze T. 1986 – Neolithische Siedlungen von Kvemo-Kartili, Georgien. München: Beck.

Kleiss W. 2015 – Geschichte der Architektur Irans. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag (Archäologie in Iran und Turan 15).

Kramer C. 1982 – Village Ethnoarchaeology: Rural Iran in Archaeological Perspective. New York: Academic Press.

Kushnareva K. K. 1997 – The southern Caucasus in Prehistory: Stages of cultural and socioeconomic development from the eighth to the second millennium BCE. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia (University Museum Monograph 99).

Le Blanc C. 1964 – Un village de la vallée du Sénégal, Amadi-Ounare. Les Cahiers d’Outre-Mer 66: 117-148.

Le Corbusier 1986 – Towards a new architecture. New York: Dover Publications.

Leroi-Gourhan A. 1973 – Milieu et techniques. Paris: Albin Michel.

Lyonnet B., Guliyev F., Bouquet L., Bruley-Chabot G., Samzun A., Pecqueur L., Jovenet E., Baudouin E., Fontugne M., Raymond P., Degorre E., Astruc L., Guilbeau D., Le Dosseur G., Benecke N., Hamon C., Poulmarc’h M. and Courcier A. 2016 – Mentesh Tepe, an early settlement of the Shomu-Shulaveri Culture in Azerbaijan. Quaternary International 395: 170‑183, doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2015.02.038

Lyonnet B., Guliyev F., Helwing B., Aliyev T., Hansen S. and Mirtskhulava G. 2012 – Ancient Kura 2010-2011: the first two seasons of joint field work in the southern Caucasus. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 44: 1‑191.

Mallowan M. and Cruikshank R. 1935 – Excavations at Tall Arpachiyah, 1933. Iraq 2: 1-179.

Margueron J.-Cl. 1987 – Notes complémentaires sur la question de l’étage. In: Huot J.-L. (éd.), Préhistoire de la Mésopotamie : la Mésopotamie préhistorique et l’exploration récente du djebel Hamrin: 447-460. Paris: CNRS Éditions.

Marro C., Bakhshaliyev V., Berthon R. and Thomalsky J. 2019 – New light on the Late Prehistory of the South Caucasus: Data from the recent excavation campaigns at Kültepe I in Nakhchivan, Azerbaijan (2012-2018). Paléorient 45,1: 81‑113.

Merpert N., Munchaev R. and Bader N. 1976 – The Investigation of Soviet Expedition in Iraq, 1973, Sumer 32: 25-62.

Messager E., Belmecheri S., von Grafenstein U., Nomade S., Ollivier V., Voinchet P., Puaud S., Courtin-Nomade A., Guillou H., Mgeladze A., Dumoulin J.P., Mazuy A. and Lordkipanidze D. 2013 – Late quaternary record of the vegetation and catchment-related changes from Lake Paravani (Javakheti, South Caucasus). Quaternary Science Reviews 77: 125-140.

Morgan J. de 1894 – Mission scientifique en Perse, tome I: Études géographiques. Paris: Leroux.

Munchaev R. 1975 – Kavkaz na zare Bronzovogo veke [The Caucasus at the dawn of the Bronze Age]. Moscow: Nauka.

Munchaev R. 1982 – Eneolit Kavkaza [Eneolithic of the Caucasus]. In: Masson V. M., Merpert N. (eds.), Eneolit SSSR: 100-164. Moscow: Nauka.

Narimanov I. 1965 – Arkheologischeskie issledovanija poselenija Shomu Tepe v 1963 g. [Archaeological research on the settlement of Shomu Tepe, campaign 1963]. Arkheologicheskie Issledovanija v Azerbajdzhan: 45-53.

Narimanov I. 1987 – Kul’tura drevnejshego zemledel’chesko-skotovodcheskogo naselenija Azerbajdzhana [The culture of the earliest agro-pastoral populations in Azerbaijan]. Baku: Elm.

Narimanov I. 1992 – The earliest agricultural settlements in the territory of Azerbaidzhan. Soviet Anthropology and Archeology 4,30: 9-66.

Neef R., Decaix A. and Tengberg M. 2017 – Agricultural practices and paleoenvironment of the Southern Caucasus during the Neolithic. A transect along the Kura River. In: Helwing B., Aliyev T., Lyonnet B., Guliyev F., Hansen S. and Mirtskhulava G. (eds.), The Kura Projects. New research on the Late Prehistory of the Southern Caucasus: 371‑377. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag (Archäologie in Iran und Turan 16).

Niebieridze L. 1978 – Darkvetis Mravalpeniani Ekhi [The rock-shelter of Darkveti]. Tbilisi: Metsniereba.

Nishiaki Y. and Guliyev F. (eds.) 2020 – Göytepe Neolithic excavations in the Middle Kura Valley. Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology, [en ligne] https://www.archaeopress.com/ArchaeopressShop/Public/download.asp?id={417350C1-849B-4F2E-BD94-D2A6F861ACD7}.

Nishiaki Y. and Guliyev F. 2021 – Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, the Shomutepe Culture, and the Neolithic Southern Caucasus. In: Nishiaki Y., Guliyev F. and Kadowaki S. (eds.), Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe. The Archaeological Investigations of an Early Neolithic Settlement in West Azerbaijan: 225-233. Berlin: Ex Oriente (Bibliotheca Neolithica Asiae Meridionalis et Occidentalis).

Nishiaki Y., Guliyev F., Huseynov F. and Shimogama K. 2020a – Chapter 3. Stratigraphy and architecture in the main excavation area of Göytepe. In: Nishiaki Y. and Guliyev F. (eds.), Göytepe Neolithic excavations in the Middle Kura Valley: 15-42. Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology.

Nishiaki Y., Guliyev F. and Baudouin E. 2020b – Chapter 6. Mud-bricks in Neolithic architecture at Göy Tepe. In: Nishiaki Y. and Guliyev F. (eds.), Göytepe Neolithic excavations in the Middle Kura Valley: 97-108. Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology.

Nishiaki Y., Guliyev F., Kadowaki S., Alakbarov V., Miki T., Salimbegov S., Akashi C. and Arai S. 2015 – Investigating Cultural and Socioeconomic Change at the Beginning of the Pottery Neolithic in the Southern Caucasus: the 2013 Excavations at Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe, Azerbaijan. Bulletin of American Schools of Oriental Research 374: 1‑28.

Nishiaki Y., Guliyev F., Kadowaki S. and Omori T. 2018 – Neolithic residential patterns in the southern Caucasus: Radiocarbon analysis of rebuilding cycles of mud-bricks architecture at Göytepe, west Azerbaijan. Quaternary International 474: 119‑130, doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2017.09.015.

Nishiaki Y., Zeynalov A., Mansrov M., Akashi C., Arai S., Shimogama K. and Guliyev F. 2019 – The Mesolithic-Neolithic interface in the Southern Caucasus: 2016-2017 excavations at Damjili Cave, West Azerbaijan. Archaeological Research in Asia 19: 100140, doi: 10.1016/j.ara.2019.100140.

Nishiaki Y., Guliyev F. and Kadowaki S. (eds.) 2021 – Hacı Elamxanlı Tepe. The Archaeological Investigations of an Early Neolithic Settlement in West Azerbaijan. Berlin: Ex Oriente (Bibliotheca Neolithica Asiae Meridionalis et Occidentalis).

Ollivier V., Fontugne M., Hamon C., Decaix A., Hatté C. and Jalabadze M. 2018 – Neolithic water management and flooding in the lesser Caucasus (Georgia). Quaternary Science Reviews 197: 267-287.

Palumbi G., Guliyev F., Astruc L., Baudouin E., Berthon R., d’Anna M. B., Decaix A., Gratuze B., Hamon C., Poulmarc’h M. and Alakbarov V. 2021 – New data and perspectives on the early stages of the Neolithic in the Middle Kura River Valley (South Caucasus). The 2017-2019 excavations at Kiçik Tepe, Western Azerbaijan. Archaeological Research in Asia 27: 100308, doi: 10/1016/j/ara/2021/100308.

Parker Pearson M. and Richards C. (eds.) 1994 – Architecture & Order. Approaches to Social Space. London-New York: Routledge.

Pelmoine T. and Mayor A. 2020 – Vernacular architecture in eastern Senegal: Chaînes opératoires and technical choices. Journal of Material culture 25,3: 348-378, doi:10.177/1359183520907929

Ragette F. 1974 – Architecture in Lebanon. Beirut: American University of Beirut.

Rapoport A. 1969 – House Form and Culture. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Rivera D., Matilla G., Obon C. and Alcaraz F. 2011 – Plants and humans in the Near East and the Caucasus. Ancient and traditional uses of plants as food and medicine. An ethnobotanical diachronic review, vol. II: The plants: Angiosperms. Murcia: Editum.

Rouholamini M. 1973 – L’habitation dans la région de Suse/Raddadeh (Khuzistan). Cahiers DAFI 3: 171‑183.

Sagona A. 2018 – The archaeology of the Caucasus. From Earliest Settlements to the Iron Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schweingruber F. H. 1990 – Anatomie europäischer Hölzer. Anatomy of European Woods. Bern, Stuttgart: P. Haupt.

Stordeur D. 2015 – Le village de Jerf el Ahmar: Syrie, 9500-8700 av. J.-C. L’architecture, miroir d’une société néolithique complexe. Paris: CNRS Éditions.

Sweet L. E. 1974 – Tell Toqaan: A Syrian Village. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan (Anthropological Paper 14).

Tsuneki A. 1998 – Tholoi: Their Socio-Economic Aspects. In: Tsuneki A. and Miyake Y. (eds.), Excavations at Tell Umm Qseir in Middle Khabur Valley, North Syria: Report of the 1996 Season: 164-176. Tsukuba: University of Tsukuba, Department of Archaeology, Institute of History and Anthropology (Al-Shark 1).

Verhoeven M. and Kranendonk P. 1996 – The Excavations: Stratigraphy and Architecture. In: Akkermans P. M. M. G. (ed.), Tell Sabi Abyad: The Late Neolithic Settlement: 25-118. Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Institut, Istanbul (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 76).

Wenger E. 1998 – Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wengrow D. 1998 – ‘The changing face of clay’: continuity and change in the transition from village to urban life in the Near East. Antiquity 72: 783-795.

Wulff H. E. 1966 – The Traditional Crafts of Persia: Their Development, Technology, and Influence on Eastern and Western Civilizations. Cambridge-London: M.I.T. Press.

Haut de page

Notes

1 Translation: The house “is made according to the norms of the group and for the group" (Coudart 1998: 18).

2 The only exception is a rectangular building identified in Horizon VII (5900-5880 cal. BC) at Aknashen (Badalyan and Harutyunyan 2022: 14, fig. 6; Chataigner et al. 2022: 78).

3 Under the aegis of the Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs and in collaboration with the Institute of Archaeology of Baku (Palumbi et al. 2021) and directed by G. Palumbi (CNRS).

4 The value of 3 m spans represented a technical constraint as early as the PPNA-PPNB, as evidenced by the restitution of the roof proposed for building EA53-II/E at Jerf el Ahmar (Syria). The beams used did not exceed 2.5 m in order to avoid a roofing layout that was too complex, according to the authors (Stordeur 2015: 89-90).

5 Translation: “is at once the most apparent and the most typical of the ethnic features”

6 Such differences in roofing within a similar environment are documented in Chad where the main house has a flat earthen roof and women's houses a conical straw roof (Dainville 1948: 67); also in Senegal where the chiefs’ rectangular flat-roofed houses stand out among other circular houses with a conical straw roof (Le Blanc 1964 121).

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1 – Map of the South Caucasus with a synthesis of architectural techniques on the main Neolithic sites.
Crédits E. Baudouin
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/2129/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 226k
Titre Fig. 2 – General plan of the settlement of Kiçik Tepe (Azerbaijan) during the Neolithic period.
Crédits M. Brunacci
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/2129/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 145k
Titre Fig. 3 – General view of the site (a) and details of buildings 21 (b) and 2 (c).
Crédits Mission Boyuk Kesik
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/2129/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 237k
Titre Fig. 4 – The collapsed roof level.
Légende a. Remains of charred plant material in situ; b. Brick wall to the South, with rubbed plaster; c. Accidentally burnt mud-bricks against the wall; d. Bone spatula.
Crédits Mission Boyuk Kesik
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/2129/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 256k
Titre Fig. 5 – Detail of the circular arrangement in the last floor level.
Crédits Mission Boyuk Kesik
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/2129/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 164k
Titre Fig. 6 – Fragments of burnt soil with twig impressions (a-b), imprints of branches (c-e) and imprints of pieces of wood (f-k).
Crédits E. Baudouin
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/2129/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 145k
Titre Fig. 7 – Upper mud-brick collapse in building 21.
Crédits Mission Boyuk Kesik.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/2129/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 123k
Titre Fig. 8 – Anthracological results.
Légende a. Distribution of the identified taxa according to contexts; b. Taxa identified in Kiçik Tepe. i. Cornus sp., radial; ii. Fraxinus sp., transverse; iii. Pistacia sp., transverse; iv. Populus/Salix, transverse.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/2129/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 208k
Titre Fig. 9 – Proposal for the restitution of Building 2.
Légende a. General view and detail of roof organisation; b. Section of Building 21.
Crédits M. Brunacci
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/2129/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 130k
Titre Table 3 – The roofing proposals in the South Caucasus.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/2129/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 921k
Légende Circle: no specified ; triangle: not applicable.
Crédits E. Baudouin
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/2129/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 922k
Titre Fig. 10 – Different roofing proposals
Légende a. Reconstruction of Shomu Tepe (after Munchaev 1975: fig. 4); b. Reconstruction of Shomu Tepe (after Azimov 2006: fig. 37); c. Reconstruction of Baba Dervish (after Azimov 2006: fig. 47); d. Imiris Gora, axionometry of building 8.9-10 (after Kiguradze 1986: fig. 23); e. Restitution of a building at Chalagantepe with the polyhedron-shape roof (after Azimov 2006: fig. 25); f-g. Detail of a conical roof in a wooden frame from a modern dwelling at As-Eyla (Djibouti; E. Baudouin); h. General view of a modern dwelling at As-Eyla (Djibouti; E. Baudouin).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/2129/img-12.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 273k
Titre Fig. 11 – Roofing proposals in the South Caucasus in the Neolithic period.
Crédits E. Baudouin
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/2129/img-13.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 179k
Titre Table 4 – The roofing proposals in the Halaf culture in Mesopotamia.
Légende Circle: no specified.
Crédits E. Baudouin
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/2129/img-14.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,1M
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Emmanuel Baudouin, Alexia Decaix, Emmanuela Brunacci, Farhad Guliyev et Giulio Palumbi, « Domed or flat? The case study of Building 21 at Kiçik Tepe (Middle Kura Valley, Azerbaijan) and a reconsideration of the Neolithic roofing architecture in the South Caucasus »Paléorient [En ligne], 48-2 | 2022, mis en ligne le 27 janvier 2023, consulté le 11 novembre 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/2129 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/paleorient.2129

Haut de page

Auteurs

Emmanuel Baudouin

Attaché temporaire d’enseignement et de recherche, Université Toulouse Jean Jaurès, Toulouse –France

Articles du même auteur

Alexia Decaix

Chercheuse associée, AASPE, UMR 7209, CNRS, Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris – France

Emmanuela Brunacci

Architecte – France

Farhad Guliyev

Archéologue, Institut d’Archéologie et d’Ethnographie, Académie des Sciences d’Azerbaïdjan, Baku – Azerbaïdjan

Giulio Palumbi

Chargé de recherche, CNRS, UMR 7264 CEPAM – France

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 susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search