44
Documenta Praehistorica XLVI (2019)
Introduction
Recent debates concerning the development of the
Neolithic in southwest Asia have centred on whether
plant cultivation and associated cultural character-
istics emerged rapidly first in an Upper Euphrates
‘core area’, and whether this process was driven by
environmental, demographic, socio-economic or cul-
tural-symbolic factors. In this regard, it is argued
that the eastern wing of the Fertile Crescent, includ-
ing the central Zagros, was a distinct ‘eco-cultural’
zone that experienced trajectories different to the
western wing, despite some more or less contem-
poraneous evolutions that it shared with other parts
of the Fertile Crescent (e.g., see Kozłowski, Auren-
che 2005; Zeder 2011). Likewise, recent research
Neolithisation process in the central Zagros>
Asiab and Ganj Dareh revisited
Hojjat Darabi
1
, Tobias Richter
2
, and Peder Mortensen
2
1 Department of Archaeology, Razi University, Kermanshah, IR
hojjatdarabi@gmail.com< h.darabi@razi.ac.ir
2 Centre for the Study of Early Agricultural Societies, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DK
ABSTRACT – In the 1960–70s, fieldwork in the central Zagros Mountains produced evidence of early
Holocene Neolithic settlements in this mountainous zone along the ‘Eastern wing’ of the Fertile Cre-
scent. Following a long hiatus in fieldwork, new investigations have highlighted once more the po-
tential of the transitional Neolithic (c. 9600–8000 BC) and early Neolithic (c. 8000–7000 BC) se-
quence in this region. However, some of the pivotal sites that had originally been excavated in the
1960–70s were not published in adequate detail, leaving many questions unanswered. Recent field-
work at Asiab and Ganj Dareh directed by the authors has sought to address the issues raised by
these previously unpublished excavations. Here we summarise the results of our recent work at these
two sites and discuss their implications for our understanding of neolithisation in the central Zagros.
IZVLE∞EK – Izkopavanja v 60. in 70. letih 20. stoletja v osrednjem delu gorovja Zagros, t.j. v goratem
predelu na vzhodnem kraku rodovitnega polmeseca, so odkrila zgodnje holocenske neolitske naselbi-
ne. Po dalj∏i prekinitvi so nove raziskave ponovno izpostavile potenciale za preu≠evanje obdobja
prehodnega neolitika (ok. 9600–8000 pr.n.∏t.) in zgodnjega neolitika (ok. 8000–7000 pr.n.∏t.) v tej
regiji. Nekatera klju≠na najdi∏≠a, ki so bila prvotno izkopana v 60. in 70. letih 20. stoletja, do danes
∏e niso bila natan≠no objavljena, zato ostajajo ∏tevilna vpra∏anja povezana s temi najdi∏≠i ∏e odprta.
Avtorji prispevka so ∫eleli z novimi izkopavanji na najdi∏≠ih Asiab in Ganj Dareh pridobiti nove po-
datke in odgovore na nere∏ena vpra∏anja iz starej∏ih neobjavljenih raziskav. V prispevku predstav-
ljamo rezultate izkopavanj na obeh najdi∏≠ih in razpravljamo o njuni vlogi pri razumevanju pro-
cesa neolitizacije v osrednjem Zagrosu.
KEY WORDS – Zagros; neolithisation; Asiab; Ganj Dareh; early domestication
KLJU∞NE BESEDE – Zagros; neolitizacija; Asiab; Ganj Dareh; zgodnja domestikacija
Proces neolitizacije v osrednjem delu Zagrosa>
ponovni pregled najdi[; Asiab in Ganj Dareh
DOI> 10.4312\dp.46.3

Neolithisation process in the central Zagros> Asiab and Ganj Dareh revisited
45
ceramic Neolithic deposits in a deep trench at Tapeh
Guran and then discovered additional Epipalaeoli-
thic and Neolithic sites in the Huleilan Valley during
a survey in 1973–74 (Meldgaard et al. 1963; Mor-
tensen 1974; 2014). At the same time, Frank Hole
excavated Ali Kosh and Chogha Sefid in the Deh Lu-
ran plain (Hole et al. 1969; Hole 1977). The longest
fieldwork, however, was directed by Philip E. L.
Smith (1976) who excavated a large area at Ganj Da-
reh during five seasons between 1965 and 1974.
Levine surveyed the Mahidasht Plain in 1975 (Le-
vine 1976; Levine, McDonald 1977) and made a
brief sounding at Tapeh Sarab in 1976 (McDonald
1979). Both Smith and Mortensen investigated an
area between Harsin, Bisotun and the confluence of
the Qara Su and Gamasiab rivers in 1977 which was
accompanied by sounding at three Neolithic sites
(Mortensen, Smith 1977; Smith, Mortensen 1980).
The latest important excavation, prior to the 1980s,
was undertaken by Judith Pullar (1990) at Tapeh
Abdul Hosein in 1978. Over the following two de-
cades, fieldwork ceased due to regional instability.
Although this first phase of fieldwork demonstrat-
ed the presence of aceramic Neolithic settlements in
the central Zagros, many questions concerning their
emergence and development with respect to external
versus internal cultural influences, the subsistence
across southwest Asia has demonstrated the extent
of the regional diversity of early cultivator-gatherer-
farming societies between the 10
th
and 8
th
millennia
BC (see Arranz-Otaegui et al. 2018; Weide et al.
2018). In the eastern wing, early cultivation of key
founder crops has been suggested for a number of
early Neolithic sites in the central Zagros (see Riehl
et al. 2012; 2013; 2015), as well as elsewhere out-
side the so-called ‘Golden Triangle’ of the Upper Eu-
phrates and the Levantine corridor (see Kozłowski,
Aurenche 2005; Fuller et al. 2011; Nesbitt 2002),
calling into question the idea of a single coherent
core area of early plant cultivation. This once again
highlights the importance of the Zagros region in
investigating neolithisation in southwest Asia. Pione-
ering fieldwork in this region was directed by the
late Robert Braidwood in the 1940–50s, he and his
team of interdisciplinary specialists investigated
early domestication and the emergence of sedentary
way of life (see Braidwood 1961; Braidwood et al.
1961; 1983). Unlike his work in Iraqi Kurdistan (cf.
Braidwood, Howe 1960; Braidwood et al. 1983)
Braidwood’s subsequent Iranian Prehistoric Project
(IPP) was never fully published. Nevertheless, exca-
vations at Warwasi, Asiab and Sarab laid the founda-
tions for later fieldwork in the Iranian Zagros (Fig.
1). In 1963, Peder Mortensen located aceramic and
Fig. 1. Map showing the location of the most important Neolithic sites, including Asiab and Ganj Da-
reh, in the Central Zagros.

Hojjat Darabi, Tobias Richter, and Peder Mortensen
46
economy and settlement pattern, as well as the chro-
nology, were only partially answered or not answer-
ed at all.
By the late 2000s new fieldwork projects were ini-
tiated in the central Zagros at Sheikh-e Abad (Mat-
thews et al. 2013), East Chia Sabz (Darabi et al.
2011; 2013), Chogha Golan (Conard et al. 2013) and
Kelek-e Asad Morad (Moradi et al. 2016). Based on
evidence gained from these excavations, discussion
on the better understanding of neolithisation in the
central Zagros began to emerge (see Darabi 2015).
Although these recent studies have produced new
insights into the emergence of Neolithic economies
and societies in this region, some of the previously
excavated sites present us with a number of ambi-
guities, which we will discuss in more detail below.
Moreover, most of the sites that have been investi-
gated to date have focused on aceramic or ceramic
Neolithic occupations, but very few Epipalaeolithic
sites have thus far been investigated. It is for these
reasons that a new project entitled “Tracking Cultu-
ral and Environmental Change: The Epipalaeoli-
thic and Neolithic in the Seimarreh Valley, central
Zagros” (TCEC) was initiated in 2016
1 1
. Following a
short introduction of the aims of the new project,
this article discusses the preliminary results from
the project’s new excavations at Asiab and Ganj Da-
reh, two famous sites originally excavated in the
1960–70s.
TCEC project
Despite recent efforts to investigate the onset of the
Neolithic and the nature of neolithisation in the cen-
tral Zagros, little is known about the preceding late
Epipalaeolithic societies that occupied this region
prior to the Neolithic. Although previous research had
demonstrated that a number of Epipalaeolithic settle-
ments exist in the region (Braidwood 1960; 1961;
Smith 1967; Mortensen 1993; Olszewski 1993a;
1993b), none of these were comprehensively pub-
lished, and little is known about the economy, pa-
laeoenvironment or society of these groups. A chro-
nological gap still exists between the late Epipalaeo-
lithic and the early Neolithic in the central Zagros
that has to yet be explained, though recent investi-
gations at Sheikh-e Abad and Chogha Golan have
pushed backed the emergence of early settlements
to the 10
th
millennium BC (Matthews et al. 2013;
Riehl et al. 2013). It is still unclear whether this gap
is due to a genuine absence of late Epipalaeolithic
settlement in the region because of the harsh condi-
tions of the Younger Dryas, or if this is simply be-
cause of a lack of investigated sites. Recent work at
rockshelter and cave sites in the Kermanshah area
has only yielded ephemeral evidence for Epipalaeo-
lithic occupations (Heydari-Guran, personal commu-
nication, 2017). Thus, the overall objective of the
TCEC project is to obtain a better understanding of
the role played by the central Zagros in the neolithi-
sation process during the late Pleistocene and early
Holocene periods (c. 13 500–6000 cal BC). In addi-
tion to reconnaissance surveys the project aims to
re-investigate some previously excavated sites using
small-scale excavations in combination with up-to-
date archaeological methods (e.g., high-resolution
Accelerator Mass Spectrometry dating, ancient DNA
analysis, micromorphology and botanical flotation)
that were not available in the 1960–70s. A further
goal is to reconstruct the late Pleistocene and early
Holocene landscapes in the central Zagros to gain a
better understanding of the impact of macro-climatic
changes on late Pleistocene and early Holocene com-
munities in the region. Furthermore, the project aims
to establish a detailed chronology of the transition
from the Epipalaeolithic to the Neolithic in the cen-
tral Zagros where, unlike its westward neighbours,
suffers from a precise chronological frame. In this
respect, in the first phase of the project two previ-
ously excavated sites were revisited: Asiab and Ganj
Dareh.
Asiab
Asiab was first excavated by Bruce Howe under the
overall direction of Robert Braidwood in 1960
(Braidwood 1960; 1961; Braidwood et al. 1961).
Although Asiab is well-known there is a significant
lack of secure knowledge about the site. Since there
is no detailed final publication of the excavations
very little information is available about the strati-
graphy of the site, specific features, the material cul-
ture, fauna or botanical remains. The nature of the
occupation (short-term versus long-term), the func-
tion of the circular cut in the basal layers (refuse pit
versus building, see below), the date of the occupa-
tion, and the nature of the site’s economy – both
with respect to animals and plants – is largely based
on partial, incomplete reports and little solid data.
1 In 2014, Peder Mortensen and Tobias Richter were asked by the board of the C. L. David Foundation and Collection to look into
re-initiating research into the late Epipalaeolithic and early Neolithic in the central Zagros, leading on from Peder Mortensen and
Philip Smith’s surveys in the Harsin basin during the 1970s (Smith, Mortensen 1980; Mortensen, Smith 1977). Subsequently, the
current joint Iranian-Danish project was set up.

Neolithisation process in the central Zagros> Asiab and Ganj Dareh revisited
47
Flotation for botanical remains was not carried out
during the original excavations, as the technique was
unknown at the time. The previous absolute dates
from Asiab range from 9310–6528 cal BC (Bangsga-
ard et al. 2019), reflecting a very long range. Given
the lack of a published stratigraphic sequence there
are great uncertainties over the provenience of the
dated samples, in addition to issues surrounding the
dating methods used and the type of sample mate-
rial dated. It is due to these reasons that the TCEC
project decided to return to Asiab in 2016 to relo-
cate, re-excavate and record Bruce Howe’s 1960 ex-
cavation area, and to open up a new area to obtain
stratified finds and samples from the site. A particu-
lar focus was on the recovery of charred plant ma-
terials, as the original excavations did not sample
for this particular material, whereas it is now of vi-
tal importance to reconstruct ancient environmental
regimes and plant-based subsistence (Darabi et al.
2018).
The site of Asiab is located at 1304m a. s. l. on the
east side of the Qara Su river, c. 0.5km south of the
village of Bijaneh and 0.7km from the modern out-
skirts of Kermanshah (Fig. 2). It is situated on a Pleis-
tocene river terrace, which is now c. 5m above the
current floodplain of the Qara Su River. While no
plan of the excavation areas or trenches was pub-
lished, Howe states in one of the only more detailed
descriptions of the excavation that 130m
2
of the site
were exposed in a series of smaller and larger tren-
ches and areas (Howe 1983). The largest excavation
area measured 6 x 8m. At the base of this main area
Howe exposed one quarter of a circular feature that
had been excavated into the virgin soil during the
Neolithic. In the interior of this feature he discov-
ered numerous pits and two human burials (Howe
1983). In this report, the stratigraphy was only de-
scribed in very basic terms and Howe voiced uncer-
tainty over the interpretation of the circular feature
he had exposed, calling it either the remains of a
building or a refuse pit.
In 2016, the priority was to relocate the previous
main excavation area that Howe dug in 1960. Three
areas were opened up: Area I on the northern part
of the terrace, Area II at the western edge of the ter-
race and Area III in the central part of the terrace
(Fig. 3). While Area I yielded no significant archaeo-
logical features, Area II was a narrow trench exca-
vated to better understand the stratigraphy of the
sediment above the conglomerate that forms the
Pleistocene terrace. Area III became the main focus
of our excavations. This area was laid out to mea-
sure 15 x 15m, and after removing topsoil the in-
filled excavation area of Bruce Howe from 1960 be-
came visible. Following the removal of the backfill,
which was dry-sieved on site, the feature previously
reported by Howe was once again revealed (Fig. 4).
The circular feature was associated with a number of
postholes and pits that Howe seems to have exca-
vated back in 1960. In the northeast of the Howe
area excavations revealed a pit that was not exca-
vated or simply missed during the original excava-
tion. This pit contained skulls and mandibles of 19
wild boars, as well as a single deer antler and the
cranium of an Asiatic brown bear (Bangsgaard et
al. 2019). The 19 boar skulls and mandibles were
all aligned in an east-west orientation and tightly
packed together. They were clearly placed in the pit
in this fashion intentionally with convincing symbo-
lic connotations. The pit was sealed with the spoil
from its excavation and appears to have been imme-
diately buried after the placement had been made.
Fig. 2. A general view of the Pleistocene terrace on which Asiab sits during the 2016 excavation, looking
north/northeast.

Hojjat Darabi, Tobias Richter, and Peder Mortensen
48
A succession of two floor layers, which Howe did
not report in any of the publications, were recorded
in both the north and east section of the area. Their
presence together with the numerous postholes clear-
ly suggest that the circular feature is the remnant of
a Neolithic building. It is important to note that both
in this area, and in the newly established excavation
area adjacent to it (see below), there was conside-
rable evidence for bioturbation: vertical ‘shafts’ dis-
turbing the archaeological sequence were noticeable
in the sections. These shafts led into animal burrows
that crisscrossed Howe’s area, as well as the new ex-
cavation area. This suggests considerable disturbance
in the Asiab stratigraphic sequence.
To further expose this structure, and also to recover
in situ archaeological remains, a 5 x 5m excavation
was opened next to Howe’s area (Fig. 5). In this area
the circular feature continued, but we were able to
trace it from much higher in the sequence. The fea-
ture became visible immediately beneath the plough
zone horizon. Further excavation showed that the
feature was cut into the sub-soil to a depth of 1.2m,
whereas in Howe’s 1960 area the cut was only pre-
served to a height of c. 0.3m. This suggests that
Howe did not notice the feature immediately and
did not trace its contour, but truncated the upper
0.9–1m of it. Our excavation in the new area showed
that the feature was infilled by a substantial mid-
den deposit which, as previously noted, was heavi-
ly disturbed by animal burrows. These burrows con-
tinued all the way down to the floor of the structure,
where we found a series of collapsed animal tunnels
crisscrossing the floor of the structure. Along the
edge of the sunken feature a pisé bench or wall had
been built that followed the circular shape of the
cut. We therefore believe that the circular cut is a
‘construction cut’ into which a wall made of pisé and
potentially other materials had been set. Some ant-
lers were incorporated into the pisé feature. Inside
the structure we found the remnants of a mud-plas-
ter floor, confirming the observation from the north
and east sections in Howe’s area. In one area a shal-
low depression had been shaped in the floor, paint-
ed with red pigment (presumably ochre), and a cat-
tle horn core placed inside.
The discovery of post- and stakeholes,
as well as in situ floors inside the cir-
cular feature demonstrates that this
was indeed a (semi)subterranean,
sunken building of considerable di-
mensions. This building may have
had a ‘special’ character: its consid-
erable size measuring 10m in diame-
ter, the pit with dozens of placed wild
boar skulls, caches of antlers, as well
as the single horn core placed in a
plastered depression stained with
ochre, all suggest that this building
may have had a ceremonial, symbolic
or communal function.
The lithic assemblage recovered from
the excavation is quite homogenous.
Cores are mostly uni-directional sin-
gle platform bladelet and flake sam-
ples, with some opposed platform
cores and flake cores also present.
Bladelets and flakes are most com-
mon, while blades are much fewer in
quantity. Amongst the retouched pie-
ces, backed, utilized and retouched
bladelets are common, as well as re-
touched blades. Techno-typologically,
these criteria suggest that the Asiab
assemblage can be grouped under the
Fig. 3. Counter map of the site and the surrounding area showing
the location of excavation areas in 2016.

Neolithisation process in the central Zagros> Asiab and Ganj Dareh revisited
49
‘Pre-M’lefatian industry’, a transitional lithic tradi-
tion that links the preceding Zarzian to succeeding
early M’lefatian tradition.
Faunal material analysed to date provides evidence
for a variation of species, including Caprines, boar,
aurochs, rodents, hedgehog, birds, tortoise, crab and
fish. At present there is no evidence of animal man-
agement (Bansgaard et al. 2019), although analysis
of the faunal material continues. The preliminary
analyses of the plant macroremains indicates the
predominance of small-seeded grasses (Poaceae),
which are found in >90 of the samples. Medium and
large-seeded grasses like wild oat, feather-grass, me-
dusahead, and brome are also present, as well as
wild barley and wheat. Amongst the wild plants
there are some edible species like club-rush, along
with crucifers and polygonaceae. Despite the pres-
ence of plants commonly consi-
dered as ‘weeds of cultivated
crops’ there is no firm evidence
for plant cultivation at the site.
The wood charcoal recovered
from the excavations suggests the
presence of woodland-steppe ve-
getation with pistachio and al-
mond.
Nine new Accelerator Mass Spec-
trometry dates are now available
from Asiab, which allow us to eva-
luate some of the previous dates
obtained from the site. Howe
(1983) obtained four dates from
Asiab which placed the occupa-
tion between c. 9300–7600 cal
BC (68.2% probability). However,
these dates are suspect because
their proveniences are unknown,
the sample material is unspeci-
fied and bulk radiocarbon dating
was used. A second round of dates
obtained from collagen samples
of animal bones from the 1960
excavation by Melinda Zeder and
Brian Hesse (2000; Zeder 2008)
using Accelerator Mass Spectro-
metry dating produced dates fal-
ling between c. 9120–6530 cal
BC (68.2% probability). Our new
series of nine dates, however,
produced a range falling between
c. 9750–9300 cal BC (68.2%). All
of these dates were obtained from
point provenienced samples of charred plant matter
that was identified to species or, if identification was
not possible, only short-lived parts of plants were
selected. Our new dates clearly indicate that the oc-
cupation of Asiab fell into the earliest part of the Ho-
locene, right at the conventional start of the Neoli-
thic era.
Ganj Dareh
Ganj Dareh is situated c. 8km west of the city of Har-
sin in the Kermanshah province, c. 32km east of
Asiab at an altitude of 1400m a.s.l. The mound is in
a small side valley where a small stream has forged
a passage through the Deraz Kouh and Boreh Kouh
Mountains. In fact, the valley in which the site lies is
the only natural break or passage through the moun-
tain range for several kilometres in a northwest-sout-
Fig. 4. Braidwood/Howe’s trench after the removal of the fill of the ori-
ginal excavation, looking southeast.
Fig. 5. The newly excavated part of the large construction in which re-
mnants of pisé wall, floor, antler and horn core are seen in situ, look-
ing south.

Hojjat Darabi, Tobias Richter, and Peder Mortensen
50
heast direction. Ganj Dareh is a settlement mound
that rises c. 6m above an alluvial floodplain situated
between steeply rising limestone cliffs (Fig. 6). The
availability of local chert, fresh water and fertile soil
as well as suitability of the valley for hunting offered
an environmental niche that seems to have been an
attractive settlement location. Smith’s excavations at
Ganj Dareh concentrated on the central, southern
and western parts of the mound, exposing approx.
21% of the site (Fig. 7). Smith sub-divided the strati-
graphy of the site into five major levels: A, B, C, D
and E (from top to bottom). Despite these substan-
tial excavations, however, the results were only pre-
liminarily and briefly published in a series of reports
and articles (see Smith 1967, 1968a-b; 1970; 1971;
1972a-b; 1972b; 1974, 1975; 1976; 1978; 1983;
1990). Although subsequent analyses of the animal
and human bones added to our knowledge in asso-
ciation with chronology and the issue of initial herd-
ing of goats at the site (see Zeder 1999; Zeder, Hes-
se 2000; Meiklejohn et al. 2017) the lack of a final,
comprehensive report left many questions unan-
swered. These include questions about the chronol-
ogy of the site, the changes in architecture and evi-
dence for plant cultivation. Therefore, the general
objectives of the TCEC project were to re-investigate
the chronology, questions about sedentism, goat do-
mestication, pre-domestic cultivation, pottery emer-
gence and delineation of the site limit (see Darabi
et al. 2017).
In 2017, work concentrated on an area to the north
of Smith’s central excavation. The section that re-
mained from the original excavations was first clean-
ed and recorded. In order to study
the full stratigraphic sequence of
the mound a 9m long and 3m
wide trench was opened, target-
ed over the top of the mound
and the collapsed/backfilled main
area of Smith’s excavation. The
area was labelled Area A and sub-
divided into A1 (top part of the
trench) and A2 (lower part of the
trench) (Fig. 8). The overall goal
was to record the entire stratigra-
phic sequence in a stepped trench.
In A1 our excavations targeted
Smith’s levels A-C, which had not
been well described in the exist-
ing reports of the excavations.
Our work revealed solid remains
of pisé and mud-brick walls in
the upper levels suggesting the
presence of a number of distinct buildings. This con-
trasts with Smith’s assessment of Levels A-C, which
he described as being largely unclear. Area A2 tar-
geted Smith’s earlier levels D-E. Around two meters
of archaeological deposits were excavated in this
area. Most of the burned deposit between the two
areas was left unexcavated until the following sea-
son in 2018. A new area (Area B) was opened to the
west of the mound adjacent to the location of the so-
called West Cut, where Smith had found pits that he
attributed to Level E. Our aim in opening this area
was to determine the chronological relationship be-
tween the pits found by Smith and the lowest phase
in Area A. Excavations in Area B, which measured 2
x 2m resulted in the discovery of architectural re-
mains that appeared to be linked, on the basis of
material culture recovered, to the upper phases A-C
on the mound. Moreover, in order to delineate the
site, 17 test pits were dug around it. The delineation
showed that the original limit of Ganj Dareh was c.
0.7ha, much larger than what had previously been
thought, i.e. 1300m
2
(cf. Smith 1972b.183; 1975.
179).
In 2018, the unexcavated portion between Areas A1
and A2 was focused on to establish a stratigraphic
link between the upper and lower sequence. The
majority of the archaeological remains excavated
here can be correlated with Smith’s Level D. They
appear to have been burned at a high temperature,
which turned the deposit into a reddish-brown in
colour. In fact, the burned deposit is entirely com-
posed of building materials, including plastered
floors and walls built of pisé and mud-bricks. As no
Fig. 6. Arial view of Ganj Dareh and the surrounding lime outcrops
(photo by L. Ahamdzadeh).

Neolithisation process in the central Zagros> Asiab and Ganj Dareh revisited
51
solid evidence of the Level E had been exposed in
the 2017 season, a new excavation area (Area D),
4 x 4m in size, was targeted over the north edge of
the ‘West Cut’. In addition to relocating the eastern
border of Smith’s ‘West Cut’, we were also able to
document a sequence of in situ archaeological de-
posits overlying Level E (Fig. 9). This included a se-
ries of architectural remains not previously reported
by Smith. However, the most important find was the
exposure of the pits excavated by Smith that he
identified as Level E. Some of these pits had not been
fully excavated by Smith and provided a unique op-
portunity to sample for finds, as well as samples for
radiocarbon dating. These pits were cut into the vir-
gin soil and it is still unclear whether they consist of
the earliest remains of the site, as believed by Smith,
or are associated with later levels.
The chipped stones of Ganj Dareh that were recov-
ered from previous excavations have already been
analysed (see Nishiaki 2016; Thomalsky 2016). Our
own analysis of the material recovered in 2017 and
2018 shows that the predominant raw material used
for flaking is of local origin, namely radiolarian
chert, mostly of a reddish-brown colour. The indus-
try is characterised by the predominance of nibbled
tools. Subsequently, backed, retouched and notched
pieces and scrapers are present. Tool production was
predominantly geared towards informal tool types,
with a significant presence of microlithic backed bla-
delet types. The Ganj Dareh lithic assemblage falls
into the general Early M’lefatian Kermanshah group
(Kozłowski 1994; 1999; Nishiaki 2016), and ap-
pears quite similar to the East Chia Sabz assemblage
recently reported in detail (Nishiaki, Darabi 2018).
Zooarchaeological analysis shows that the mammal
species were dominated by goats. Other species in-
clude wild aurochs, deer, boar, fox and hare. Work
on avifaunal remains is still ongoing, but partrid-
ges are well represented (Bansgaard, Yeomans in
prep.). Previous work on the faunal material from
the original excavations at Ganj Dareh suggested
that goats were managed at the site as an early stage
in the aceramic Neolithic (cf. Hesse 1978; Zeder,
Hesse 2000; Zeder 2008). The preliminary data thus
far available from the recent excavations suggests
that – on the basis of the mortality profile – there is
a high presence of foetal or pullus age bones. This
may underline the argument for early goat manage-
ment. Moreover, mud-bricks with impressed hoof
prints also suggest the presence of goats at the set-
tlement during construction work, further support-
ing the idea of management.
The preliminary analyses of the plant macro-remains
from Ganj Dareh was carried out in the latest phases:
A-C (no remains from the pits have been analysed
yet). In comparison to Asiab, a change is observed
with the predominance of large-seeded grasses, pri-
marily barley. However, feathergrass seem to have
been consumed as well as the seeds appear frag-
mented. Lentils are also present, along with small-
seeded legumes that could potentially constitute
fodder remains. In terms of wood charcoal, wood-
land-steppe vegetation with pistachio and almond
Fig. 7. Locations of the excavated areas in the 1960–70s; note the pits (level E) exposed in the west cut
and plan of the buildings (Level D) in the central part of the mound (modified after Merret 2004.178,
Fig. 9/1).

Hojjat Darabi, Tobias Richter, and Peder Mortensen
52
predominates the assemblage (Arranz-Otaegui in
prep.).
Ganj Dareh has so far been radiocarbon dated in se-
veral stages. First, all of the dates acquired by Smith
(1990) relied on charred plant material and range
from c. 10 500–7000 cal BC. However, the dates are
not internally consistent. Smith reported that “the
earliest level (E) has produced both the earliest and
some of the youngest dates in the site” (Smith 1990.
324). Other samples have also produced dates that
appear to be inconsistent with their stratigraphic po-
sition. The exact provenance of many of these dates
is uncertain. Furthermore, most were obtained using
bulk carbon dating and in most cases the dated ma-
terial was not identified prior to dating. Second, Ze-
der and Hesse (2000) obtained an additional series
of 12 AMS dates taken from collagen samples of goat
bones from the site ranging from c. 8240–7610 cal
BC. These dates suggested a much shorter period of
occupation for the site. They argued that the site
was only occupied for a period of 100–200 years.
These dates also showed no hiatus in occupation be-
tween Levels E and D. Third, Christopher Meikle-
john et al. (2017) recently obtained another five
dates from collagen in human bones that fall be-
tween c. 8200–7750 cal BC, confirming Zeder and
Hesse’s chronology. The real issue for all of these
dates, however, is that due to the lack of a final pub-
lication the contextual stratigraphic information is
non-existent. Thus, all of the dates are somewhat
suspect. This makes it vital that additional dates
from secure, well-identified and recorded, stratified
contexts are obtained, using the latest advanced AMS
dating techniques available. We recovered a new
series of samples from Areas A and B and some of
the test pits dug around the site for delineation in
2017. These were recently dated at the Aarhus AMS
Centre and suggest a range of dates between 8200–
7600 cal BC (68.2% probability). However, this se-
quence of dates is not yet complete, as the portion
of the stratigraphic sequence between A1 and A2
has yet to be dated, and because no dates are yet
available for Area D. However, the dates do show
that the occupation in Area B corresponds to Levels
A-C at the top of the mound. This suggests that dur-
ing this phase, between c. 7800–7600 cal BC, the
occupation spread from the mound to the surround-
ing area. Further analysis of the recently recovered
samples from Ganj Dareh is underway to finalise the
chronological assessment of the site. 
Conclusions
The recent excavations at Asiab and Ganj Dareh have
started to provide us with significant new insights
into the transition from hunting and gathering to
agriculture in the central Zagros. However, current
achievements are still preliminary and require fur-
ther detailed analysis. At Asiab, Bruce Howe’s main
trench was relocated and documented. Moreover,
the new excavation area suggests that the cut was
originally a circular, semi-subterranean structure that
probably represent a communal building – a type of
structure that is common at many other early acera-
mic Neolithic sites in southwest Asia. Judging from
new AMS dates it can be stated that the emergence
of communal buildings pre-dates the emergence of
early domesticates in the eastern wing of the Fertile
Crescent. As such, neolithization in the central Zag-
ros should not entirely be limited to an investigation
of early domestication and sedentary life while, de-
spite the Levant and Anatolia, other ritual and social
dimensions of the life of communities have obvious-
ly been overlooked at a regional scale. However, un-
like previous views suggesting the initial manage-
ment of goats at Asiab (cf. Bökönyi 1977; Zeder Fig. 8. A general view of Areas I and II.

Neolithisation process in the central Zagros> Asiab and Ganj Dareh revisited
53
2008) new zoo-archaeological analysis shows no evi-
dence of animal management or domestication
(Bansgaard et al. 2019). Likewise, no evidence indi-
cating cultivation of plants has yet been found. This
type of subsistence strategy is consistent with other
contemporaneous sites across the Zagros and Taurus
arc, where the earliest settlements were still based
on hunting and gathering while turning to sedentary
life in the 10
th
millennium BC when the environ-
ment had improved after the end of the Younger
Dryas. However, the nature of the transition from
seasonality to sedentary life is still poorly understood
in the Zagros region. Generally speaking, the new
finds from Asiab are all aligned with the Transitional
Neolithic period (c. 9600–8000 BC) during which
the foundations were laid for the subsequent early
Neolithic (c. 8000–7000 BC) in the central Zagros.
The ambiguities associated with the stratigraphy and
chronology at Ganj Dareh, are now being addressed.
Due to the complexity of the stratigraphic sequence,
however, further radiocarbon dating and analysis
of the site formation processes are needed to fully
evaluate the previous phasing of Ganj Dareh’s occu-
pations. The new stratigraphic sequence will allow
us to study diachronic develop-
ments in architecture, material
culture and economy at the site
in unprecedented detail. The mid-
dle phase of occupation in Area
A, previously known as Level D,
appears to have some evidence
for large-scale destruction that
seems to have been resulted from
a massive fire. In terms of chro-
nology, our new results show that
the site was continuously under
occupation for roughly 600 years
(c. 8200–7600 BC), a duration
longer than what was already
suggested (cf. Zeder, Hesse 2000;
Meiklejohn et al. 2017). Also, de-
lineation of the site has attested
to an area larger than the previ-
ous estimation. In this regard, it
seems that due to continuous oc-
cupation and deposition the site
was so raised through time that
its surrounding areas were final-
ly prioritised by the latest inhabi-
tants and then abandoned forev-
er around the mid-8
th 
millenni-
um BC, a time in which the ear-
liest occupations appeared in the
lowland south-western Iran. Based on the new data,
it is believed that the earliest occupants of Ganj Da-
reh were herding goats. This is consistent with the
previous evidence (cf. Hesse 1978; 1984; Zeder,
Hesse 2000; Zeder 2008). Although the presence of
cereals is notable at the site the nature of crop do-
mestication still needs further analysis. Ganj Dareh
was already suggested to have yielded early evidence
of two-row barley (Van Zeist et al. 1984). The que-
stions of barley domestication and also pre-domes-
tic cultivation of plants, however, need to be given
further attention in future. It has recently been sug-
gested that pre-domestic cultivation did not happen
across the Zagros region (see Weide et al. 2018).
Although this idea once again shows a tendency for
the out-modelled issue of diffusion of agriculture
stemming from culture-historical concepts, further
data is required to investigate the mechanism of tran-
sition to early domestication at a local scale. There-
fore, the transitional Neolithic sites such as Asiab,
Chogha Golan and Sheikh-e Abad should attract par-
ticular attention to track synchronous cultural and
environmental changes at the dawn of the Holocene
era in the Zagros.
Fig. 9. Area D after the removal of the backfill showing the in situ de-
posits, including the previously excavated pits by Smith (foreground)
and the recently exposed sequence overlying a number of new pits
(background).

Hojjat Darabi, Tobias Richter, and Peder Mortensen
54
Arranz-Otaegui A., Colledge S., Zapata L., Teira-Mayolini
L. C., and José Ibáñez, J. 2016. Regional diversity on the
timing for the initial appearance of cereal cultivation and
domestication in southwest Asia. Proceedings of the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences of the USA 1139(49): 14001–
14006.
Bangsgaard P., Yeomans L., Darabi H., Gregersen K. M.,
Jesper O., Richter T., and Mortensen P. 2019. Feasting on
Wild Boar in the Early Neolithic. Evidence from an 11,400-
year-old Placed Deposit at Tappeh Asiab, Central Zagros.
Cambridge Archaeological Journal 29(3): 443–463.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S095977431900009X
Bökönyi S. 1977. Animal Remains from the Kermanshah
Valley, Iran. British Archaeological Reports SS 34. Archa-
eopress. Oxford.
Braidwood R. J. 1960. Seeking the World’s First Farmers
in Persian Kurdistan: A Full-Scale Investigation of Prehi-
storic Sites near Kermanshah. Illustrated London News
237(6325): 695–697.
1961. The Iranian Prehistoric Project, 1959–1960. Ira-
nica Antiqua 1: 3–7.
Braidwood R. J., Howe B. 1960. Prehistoric investigation
in Iraqi Kurdistan. Studies in ancient oriental civilization
31. The Oriental institute of the University of Chicago.
Chicago.
Braidwood R. J., Howe B., and Reed C. A. 1961. The Ira-
nian Prehistoric Project. New Problems Arise as More Is
Learned of the First Attempts at Food Production and Set-
tled Village Life. Science 133(3469): 2008–2010.
Braidwood L. S., Braidwood R. J., Howe B., Reed C. A., and
Watson P. J. 1983. Prehistoric Archaeology along the
Zagros Flanks. Oriental Institute Publications 105. The
University of Chicago. Chicago.
We wish to express out gratitude to the C. L. David Foundation and Collection for financial supporting of the
TCEC project. We are also thankful to the Research Institute of Cultural Heritage and Tourism of Iran (RICHT)
and the Iranian Centre for Archaeological Research (ICAR) for giving permission to carry out excavations at
Asiab and Ganj Dareh. We would also like to express thanks to Razi University, for providing us with infra-
structural support in Kermanshah, and University of Copenhagen, for also supporting the project. We would like
to thank office of Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism of Kermanshah and its representatives. Our spe-
cial gratitude goes to the fieldwork members and those who dealt with post-field analyses. Lastly, we thank Pro-
fessor Mihael Budja, the organizer of the 24
th
Neolithic Seminar, for his attention to our work.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
References
∴ ∴
Conard N. J., Reihl S., and Zeidi M. 2013. Revisiting Neo-
lithisation in the Zagros Foothills: Excavations at Chogha
Golan, An Aceramic Neolithic Site in Ilam Province, West-
ern Iran. In R. Matthews, H. Fazeli Nashli (eds.), The Neo-
lithisation of Iran, The Formation of New Societies. Ox-
bow Books. Oxford: 76–85.
Darabi H. 2015. An Introduction to the Neolithic Revo-
lution of the Central Zagros, Iran. British Archaeological
Reports IS 2746. Archaeopress. Oxford.
Darabi H., Naseri R., Young R., and Fazeli Nashli H. 2011.
Absolute Chronology of East Chia Sabz: A Pre-Pottery Neo-
lithic site in Western Iran. Documenta Praehistorica 38:
255–265. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.38.20
Darabi H., Fazeli Nashli H., Naseri R., Riehl S., and Young
R. 2013. The Neolithisation Process in the Seimarreh Val-
ley: Excavations at East Chia Sabz, Central Zagros. In R.
Matthews, H. Fazeli Nashli (eds.), The Neolithisation of
Iran, The Formation of New Societies. Oxbow Books.
Oxford: 55–75.
Darabi H., Richter T., and Mortensen P. 2016. Tracking
Cultural and Environmental Change: The Epipalaeo-
lithic and Neolithic in the Seimarreh Valley, central Zag-
ros, Excavation at Tapeh Asiab, Kermanshah. Archive
Report. Tehran.
2017. Tracking Cultural and Environmental Change:
The Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic in the Seimarreh
Valley, central Zagros, Excavation at Tapeh Ganj Da-
reh, Kermanshah. Archive Report. Tehran.
2018. New Excavations at Tappeh Asiab, Kermanshah
Province, Iran. Antiquity 92(361): e2.
https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2018.3
Fuller D. Q., Willcox G., and Allaby R. G. 2011. Cultivation
and domestication had multiple origins: arguments against

Neolithisation process in the central Zagros> Asiab and Ganj Dareh revisited
55
the core area hypothesis for the origins of agriculture in
the Near East. World Archaeology 43(4): 628–652.
Hesse B. 1978. Evidence for Husbandry from the Early
Neolithic Site of Ganj Dareh in Western Iran. Unpubli-
shed PhD Thesis. University of Columbia. New York.
1984. These are our goats: The origins of herding in
West Central Iran. In J. Clutton-Brock, C. Grigson (eds.),
Animals and Archaeology 3: Early Herders and their
flocks. British Archaeological Reports IS 202. Archaeo-
press. Oxford: 43–264.
Hole F. 1977. Studies in the archaeological history of
the Deh Luran Plain: The Excavation of Chogha Sefid.
Ann Arbor. Michigan.
Hole F., Flannery K. V., and Neely J. A. 1969. Prehistory
and Human Ecology on the Deh Luran Plain. Memoirs
of the Museum of Anthropology, no. 1. The University of
Michigan Press. Ann Arbor.
Kozłowski S. K. 1994. Chipped Neolithic Industries at the
Eastern Wing of the Fertile Crescent. In H. G. Gebel, S.
K. Kozłowski (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries
of the Fertile Crescent. Ex Oriente. Berlin: 143–171.
1999. The Eastern Wind of the Fertile Crescent: Late
Prehistory of Greater Mesopotamia Lithic Industries.
British Archaeological Reports IS 760. Archaeopress.
Oxford.
Kozłowski S. K., Aurenche O. 2005. Territories, Bounda-
ries and Cultures in the Neolithic Near East. British Ar-
chaeological Reports IS 1362. Archaeopress. Oxford.
Levine L. D. 1976. Survey in the Province of Kermansha-
han, 1975: Mahidasht in the Prehistoric and early Histo-
ric Periods. In F. Bagherzadeh (ed.), Proceeding of the 4
th
Annual Symposium on Archaeological Research in Iran.
Tehran: 284–297.
Levine L. D., McDonald M. M. A. 1977. The Neolithic and
Chalcholithic Periods in the Mahidasht. Iran 15: 39–52.
Matthews R., Matthews W., and Mohammadifar Y. 2013.
The Earliest Neolithic of Iran: 2008 Excavations at Tap-
peh Sheikh-e Abad and Tappeh Jani: Central Zagros Ar-
chaeological Project. Oxbow Books. Oxford.
McDonald M. M. A. 1979. An examination of mid-Holo-
cene settlement patterns in the Central Zagros region
of western Iran. Unpublished PhD thesis. Department of
Anthropology. University of Toronto. Toronto.
Meiklejohn C., Merrett D. C., Reich D., and Pinhasi R. 2017.
Direct dating of human skeletal material from Ganj Da-
reh, Early Neolithic of the Iranian Zagros. Journal of
Archaeological Science: Reports 12: 165–172.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.01.036
Meldgaard J., Mortensen P. and Thrane H. 1963. Excava-
tions at Tepe Guran, Luristan. Acta Archaeologica 34:
97–133.
Moradi B., Mashkour M., Eghbal H., Azadeh Mohaseb F.,
Ghassimi T., Rahmati E., Vahdati A. A., Gratuze B., and
Tengberg M. 2016. A short account of Kelek Asad Morad,
a pre-pottery Neolithic Site in Pol-e Dokhtar, Luristan. In
K. Roustaei, M. Mshkour (eds.), The Neolithic of the Ira-
nian Plateau, Recent Research. Ex Oriente. Berlin: 1–14.
Merrett D. C. 2004. Bioarchaeology in Early Neolithic
Iran: Assessment of Health Status and Subsistence Stra-
tegy. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Monitoba.
Winnipeg.
Mortensen P. 1974. A Survey of the Prehistoric Settle-
ments in Northern Luristan. Acta Archaeologica 45: 1–47.
2014. Excavations at Tepe Guran: the Neolithic Pe-
riod. Acta Iranica 55. Peeters Pub & Booksellers. Leuven.
Mortensen P., Smith P. E. L. 1977. A Survey of Prehistoric
Sites in the Harsin Region, 1977. In F. Bagherzadeh (ed.),
Proceedings of the VI
th
Annual Symposium on Archaeo-
logical Research in Iran. Tehran: 1–23.
Nesbitt M. 2002. When and where did domesticated ce-
reals first occur in southwest Asia? In R. T. J. Cappers, S.
Bottema (eds.). The Dawn of Farming in the Near East.
Ex Oriente. Berlin: 113–132.
Nishiaki Y. 2016. Techno-Typological Observations on the
Flaked Stone Industry of the Early Neolithic Settlement of
Ganj Dareh, West Iran (the Tehran Collection). In K. Rou-
staei, M. Mashkour (eds.), The Neolithic of the Iranian
Plateau. Recent Research. Ex Oriente. Berlin: 189–207.
Nishiaki Y., Darabi H. 2018. The earliest Neolithic lithic
industries of the Central Zagros: New evidence from East
Chia Sabz, Western Iran. Archaeological Research in
Asia 16: 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ara.2018.02.002
Olszewski D. I. 1993a. Zarzian Microliths from Warwasi
Rockshelter, Iran: Scalene Triangles as Arrow Compo-
nents. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropo-
logical Association 4(1): 199–205.
1993b. The Zarzian occupation at Warwasi Rockshelter,
Iran. In D. Olszewski, H. Dibble (eds.), The Paleolithic
Prehistory of the Zagros-Taurus. University Museum
Monograph 83. The University of Pennsylvania. Phila-
delphia: 207–235.

Hojjat Darabi, Tobias Richter, and Peder Mortensen
56
1994. The Lithic Transition to the Early Neolithic in the
Zagros Region- Zarzian and M’lefatian Industries. In S.
K. Kozlowski, H. G. K. Gebel (eds.), Neolithic Chipped
Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent and Their Con-
temporaries in Adjacent Regions. Ex Oriente. Berlin:
183–192.
Pullar J. 1990. Tepe Abdul Hosein, a Neolithic Site in
Western Iran, Excavations 1978. British Archaeological
Reports IS 563. Archaeopress. Oxford.
Riehl S., Benz M., Conard N., Darabi H., Deckers K., Faze-
li H., and Zeidi M. 2012. Plant use in three Pre-Pottery Neo-
lithic sites of the northern and eastern Fertile Crescent: a
preliminary report. Vegetation History and Archaeobo-
tany 21(2): 95–106.
Riehl S., Zeidi M., and Conard N. 2013. Emergence of Agri-
culture in the Foothills of the Zagros Mountains of Iran.
Science 341: 65–67.
Riehl S., Asouti E., Karakaya D., Starkovich B. M., Zeidi M.,
and Conard N. 2015. Resilience at the Transition to Agri-
culture: The Long-Term Landscape and Resource Develop-
ment at the Aceramic Neolithic Tell Site of Chogha Golan
(Iran). BioMed Research International 2015: 1–22.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/532481
Smith P. E. L. 1967. Ghar-I Khar and Ganj-I Dareh. Iran
5: 138–139.
1968a. Ganj Dareh Tepe. Iran 6: 158–160.
1968b. Prehistoric Excavations at Ganj Dareh Tepe in
1967. In F. Bagherzadeh (ed.), Proceedings of the 5
th
International Congress of Iranian Art and Archaeo-
logy. Tehran: 183–193.
1970. Ganj Dareh Tepe. Iran 8: 178–180.
1971. Iran, 9000–4000 BC: The Neolithic. Expedition
13: 6–13.
1972a. Changes in Population Pressure in Archaeolo-
gical Explanation. World Archaeology 4(1): 5–18.
1972b. Ganj Dareh Tepe. Iran 10: 165–168.
1974. Ganj Dareh Tepe. Paléorient 2(1): 207–209.
1975. Ganj Dareh Tepe. Iran 13: 178–180.
1976. Reflection on Four Seasons of Excavations at Tap-
peh Ganj Dareh. In F. Bagherzadeh (ed.), Proceeding of
the 4
th
Annual Symposium on Archaeological Re-
search in Iran. Tehran: 11–22.
1978. An Interim Report on Ganj Dareh Tepe, Iran.
American Journal of Archaeology 82(4): 537–540.
1983. Ganj Dareh: an early Neolithic site in Iran. Archiv
fair Orientforschung 29: 300–302.
1990. Architectural Innovation and Experimentation at
Ganj Dareh, Iran. World Archaeology 21(3): 323–335.
Smith P. E. L., Mortensen P. 1980. Three New Early Neo-
lithic Sites in Western Iran. Current Anthropology 21(4):
511–512.
Smith P. E. L., Young C. Jr. 1966. Research in the Prehi-
story of Central Western Iran. Science 153(3734): 386–
391.
Thomalsky J. 2016. The Development of Lithic Industries
in Iran in the Light of the Neolithisation Process. In K.
Roustaei, M. Mashkour (eds.), The Neolithic of the Ira-
nian Plateau. Recent Research. Ex Oriente. Berlin: 169–
181.
Van Zeist W., Smith P. E. L., Palfenier-Vegeter S. R. M., and
Casparie W. A. 1984. An Archaeobotanical Study of Ganj
Dareh. Palaeohistoria 26: 201–224.
Weide A., Riehl S., Zeidi M., and Conard N. 2018. A syste-
matic review of wild grass exploitation in relation to
emerging cereal cultivation throughout the Epipalaeoli-
thic and aceramic Neolithic of the Fertile Crescent. PLOS
ONE 13(1): e0189811.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189811
Zeder M. A. 1999. Animal domestication in the Zagros: A
review of past and current research. Paléorient 25(2):
11–25.
2008. Animal domestication in the Zagros: An update
and directions for future research. In E. Vila, L. Gouri-
chon, A. M. Choyke, H. Buitenhuis (eds.), Archaeozoo-
logy of the Near East VIII: Proceedings of the 8
th
Inter-
national Symposium on the Archaeozoology of South-
western Asia and Adjacent Areas. Maison de l’Orient
et de la Méditerrané – Jean Pouilloux. Lyon: 243–278.
2011. The Origins of Agriculture in the Near East. Cur-
rent Anthropology 52 (Supplement 4): 221–236.
https://www. journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/6
59307
Zeder M. A., Hesse B. 2000. The Initial Domestication of
Goats (Capra hircus) in the Zagros Mountains 10,000
Years Ago. Science 287: 2254–2257.
https://doi.org/10/1126/science.287.5461.2254