414 Documenta Praehistorica XLVI (2019) New Uruk finds in NW Iran> Hasanlu VIII-VII and no Kura-Araxes culture evidence in southern parts of Lake Urmia Akbar Abedi 1 , Reza Heidari 2 , Salah Salimi 3 , and Nasir Eskandari 4 1 Archaeology and Archaeometry Department, Tabriz Islamic Art University, Tabriz, IR akbar.abedi@tabriziau.ac.ir 2 Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism Organization of Western Azerbaijan Province, Urmia, IR re.heydari@gmail.com 3 Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Tehran, Tehran, IR salahsalimi@gmail.com 4 Department of Archaeology, University of Tehran, Tehran, IR nasireskandari@gmail.com ABSTRACT – During 2007 archaeological survey of Little Zab River in Sardasht district in northwest Iran, six typical Uruk (Uruk-related) sites were brought to light. One of the important ones is Tepe Badamyar Rabat, with typical Bevelled Rim Bowls pottery that is considered as the first evidence of Uruk materials in northwest Iran. In addition to Rabat, the Uruk materials found in Tepe Baghi, Tepe Waliv, Tepe Molla Yousef, Tepe Lavin and Tepe Goman provide an opportunity for studying the one millennium gap between Hasanlu VIIIA (Pisdeli) and VIIC (Kura-Araxes) in the southern parts of Lake Urmia, which is seen as a key unknown period in the archaeology of NW Iran. The Uruk evidence found in the mentioned sites mainly belongs to the Middle and Late Uruk periods (3600/3500–3100 BC). IZVLE∞EK – Pri arheolo∏kem pregledu na obmo≠ju reke Malo Zab v okraju Sardasht v severozahod- nem Iranu so leta 2007 odkrili ∏est tipi≠nih najdi∏≠ obdobja Uruk (oz. z Urukom povezanih najdi∏≠). Izmed teh je najbolj pomembno najdi∏≠e Tepe Badamyar Rabat, kjer so odkrili lon≠ene sklede s po- ∏evnim robom, ki so pomembna zna≠ilnost materiala obdobja Uruk v severozahodnem Iranu. Po- memben je tudi vpogled v najdbe obdobja Uruk z drugih najdi∏≠ Tepe Baghi, Tepe Walvin, Tepe Mol- la Yousef, Tepe Lavin in Tepe Goman; le-te namre≠ omogo≠ajo raziskave tiso≠letne prekinitve med fazama Hasanlu VIIIA (Pisdeli) in VIIC (Kura-Araxes) na ju∫nem delu jezera Urmia, ki je klju≠na neznanka pri preu≠evanju arheologije SZ Irana. Najdbe obdobja Uruk na teh najdi∏≠ih lahko datira- mo v fazi srednjega do poznega obdobja Uruk (3600/3500–3100 BC). KEY WORDS – Little Zab River; Uruk, Hasanlu VIIIA (Pisdeli)/VIIC (Kura-Araxes); NW Iran; border- land KLJU∞NE BESEDE – reka Mali Zab; Uruk; Hasanlu VIIIA (Pisdeli)/VIIC (Kura-Araxes); SZ Iran; obmej- no obmo≠je Nove najdbe obdobja Uruk v SZ Iranu> Hasanlu VIII-VII in odsotnost dokazov o kulturi Kura-Araxes v ju/nih predelih jezera Urmia DOI> 10.4312\dp.46.26 New Uruk finds in NW Iran> Hasanlu VIII-VII and no Kura-Araxes culture evidence in southern parts of Lake Urmia 415 ral newly found and typical Uruk sites in the south- ern part of the Lake Urmia, with detailed emphasis on new pottery, lithic and special finds at Tepe Ba- damyar Rabat. The present paper also aims to expose the position of Uruk phenomena in NW Iran chrono- logical framework and the interregional relation- ships with adjacent areas. The present study seeks to answer the questions raised above and aims to address the presence of Uruk (-related) culture in NW Iran, a topic that has not been addressed in any of archaeological research on this area. This research will introduce the typical Uruk-related site of Badamyar with its typical pot- tery items of Bevelled Rim Bowls (hereafter BRBs), and will also introduce all of the surveyed Uruk-re- lated sites in NW Iran, and especially those in the Lit- tle Zab River basin, while the importance and distri- bution map of the region will discussed. Archaeological background of southern Lake Urmia The first archaeological studies in the southern parts of the Lake Urmia were started in 1936 by Sir Aurel Stein, with a survey and six days of excavation at Tepe Dinkhah, where he found eastern Khabur items which were comparable with Hasanlu VI, and he systematically surveyed the Hasan-Ali Tepe in the connection road of Ushnaviyeh to Naghadeh, find- ing special Bronze Age painted ware (Steint 1940). His archaeological activities continued at Geoy Tepe Urmia. The first scientific archaeological studies con- cerning the EBA period in NW Iran began with the works of Frank Earp in 1903, who opened four Bronze Age tombs (Crawford 1975), and continued with the work of Theodore Bortun Brown in 1948 who spent six weeks excavating in eight separate trenches (Brown 1951). In 1949 Carleton Coon con- ducted a Palaeolithic cave survey in NW Iran, and started his excavation at Temtemeh cave at the Naz- loo Chay River Basin close to Esmail Agha village (Coon 1951). Excavations continued at other sites, such as Hasanlu (Dyson 1965; 1968; 1972; 1976; Dyson, Muscarella 1989) in the southern Lake Ur- mia region, directed by Robert Dyson, Hajji Firuz (Voigt 1983), Dalma (Hamlin 1975) and Pisdeli (Dy- son, Young 1960). Studies subsequent to these early excavations led to identification of the Late Neoli- thic period in Hajji Firuz (6 th millennium BC), pre- viously regarded as belonging to the cultural hori- zon of Hassuna in Mesopotamia (Voigt 1983). Re- search in the region was continued by Ralph S. So- lecki in 1969 (Solecki 1969) and then by Regnar Introduction The transition process between the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age (Kura-Araxes phenomena) is one of the least known, yet most important eras in the ancient history and chronological table of NW Iran. Previous studies in NW Iran demonstrated that the 4 th millennium BC (mid-4 th to end of 3 rd millen- nium BC) remains among the least understood pe- riods of development in the prehistory of the region. According to the Hasanlu chronological sequence, the period between Hasanlu VIIIA (called as Pisdeli) and VIIC (EBA synchronic with Kura-Araxes culture) spans one thousand years, but the existence of only two periods (Pisdeli and Kura-Araxes) during this time raises some questions, because, based on recent excavations, four different periods and phases (LC1- 3 and Kura-Araxes I) have been brought to light dur- ing Hasanlu VIIIA and VIIC (Maziar 2010; Abedi et al. 2014; 2015; Abedi, Omrani 2015; Abedi 2017). This chronological problem is considered as one of the largest gaps in our understanding of the develop- mental sequence of NW Iran (Voigt, Dyson 1992; Danti et al. 2004; Helwing 2004). In northern parts of the Lake Urmia and especially in the Middle Arax- es Basin, this chronological issue has been clarified and resolved due to absolute 14 C radiocarbon dating of Kul Tepe Jolfa and Dava Göz Khoy for this time span (Abedi et al. 2014; Abedi, Omrani 2015). Also according to new research in the eastern and west- ern parts of Lake Urmia, the new chronology can be applied for this interval in these regions. One of the most obscure parts of NW Iran during Hasanlu VIIIA (Pisdeli) and VIIC (EBA) is the southern parts of Lake Urmia, with a millennium long (c. 4000/3900–3000 BC) gap in our understanding (Voigt, Dyson 1992). Several questions can be raised about this problem. First, were the southern plains of Lake Urmia during this time completely abandoned and vacant? If not, which cultures existed in this part of NW Iran? What was the nature of these cultures and what was their relationship with the Kura-Araxes and Uruk tribes? These were the questions raised by Michael Danti et al. (2014) after analysis of Hasanlu materials when identifying the transition from the Late Chalolithic to EBA. These findings not only established a good opportu- nity for revising the NW Iran chronological table, but also a good basis for studying the inter-regional rela- tionships of NW Iranian communities with southern and northern Mesopotamian societies during the 4 th millennium BC. This article aims to introduce seve- Akbar Abedi, Reza Heidari, Salah Salimi, and Nasir Eskandari 416 Kearton (1969), introducing around 300 archaeo- logical sites from the prehistoric to Islamic periods. During 1971 a new survey was begun by Stuart Swiny (1975), who started from NW Iran and moved to the central Zagros, introducing 93 sites. The survey of NW Iran was continued by Wolfram Kleiss and Stephan Kroll, especially around Ushnaviyeh-Naqa- deh, Piranshahr-Sardasht and Mahabad-Miandoab (Kroll 1994; 2004; 2005). After the Iranian Revolu- tion several different projects were carried out in the region. In 2008 an archaeological survey was conducted by Ali Binandeh along the Little Zab Ri- ver Basin and Simineh Rud revealed the settlement patterns of the region during the Neolithic to the Islamic eras (Binandeh et al. 2012). The excavation at Tepe Lavin should be considered one of the im- portant excavation projects in the Piranshahr region (Binandeh et al. 2012). The excavations in dam ar- chaeological projects such as Sardasht (Fallahian, Nozhati 2016) Silveh (Abedi 2017a) and Kanisib should also be considered important scientific pro- jects for better understanding of the archaeology of the region from the Neolithic to the Islamic eras. However, the earliest and closest survey in the Sar- dasht region (where the research data come from) was launched at Tepe Rabat, and this revealed the best Manaeean evidence in NW Iran (Kargar, Bi- nandeh 2009; Heidari 2006). During the second sea- son of excavation at Tepe Rabat, the archaeological mission conducted a survey around the Rabat area, and they found the first evidence of BRBs and 17 archaeological sites (Heidari 2006). In 2007 a sur- vey was also carried out to assess the settlement pat- tern of the region along Little Zab River, with 34 ar- chaeological sites found during two seasons and six of these containing Uruk-related materials (Heida- ri 2007). The rescue project of the Sardasht Dam re- ported by Fallahian introduced five archaeological excavation sites, all of which are located on the banks of the Little Zab River. Both Tepe Baghi (Fal- lahian, Nozhati 2016) and Tepe Mollawosu (Binan- deh 2016) were found to have Uruk-related materi- als during this project. Tepe Badamyar Rabat, the Uruk-related site in NW Iran Rabat is a city in the central district of Sardasht coun- ty, the west Azerbaijan province of Iran. In Rabat there are five archaeological sites numbered as 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Site number 4, which is called as Tepe Badamyar Rabat (45°32’13”E; 36°12’32”N; 1141m asl; Figs. 1–3) is located exactly 800m northeast of the city of Rabat. Tepe Badamyar Rabat is a single period Uruk-related site about 1ha in extent and is situated on the slope of a natural mound. The site Fig. 1. Location map of Tepe Badamyar Rabat Sardasht and distribution map of Uruk and Proto-Elamite sites in Iran and Western Asia (after van de Mieroop 2004.36, Map 2.2). New Uruk finds in NW Iran> Hasanlu VIII-VII and no Kura-Araxes culture evidence in southern parts of Lake Urmia 417 was originally discovered by an expedition to the Sardasht in western Azerbaijan pro- vince in 2006 and 2007 under the supervi- sion of Reza Heidari (Heidari 2006; 2007), and was later reported by Ali Binandeh (2016) and R. Heidari and Reyhaneh Afifi (2011). They introduced Badamyar Rabat as a 4 th millennium Uruk or Uruk-related site with typical BRBs. Afterwards, during a Lit- tle Zab River basin survey, Binandeh repor- ted Badamyar as one of the typical Uruk si- tes in NW Iran and the Little Zab River ba- sin (Binandeh 2016). A recent survey carried out by the authors (Heidari 2006; 2007; Heidari, Afifi 2011) provided the opportunity for a detailed study of the site. Tepe Badamyar Rabat is a single period Uruk (-related) site with typ- ical BRB pottery as a unique index for the comparative dating of the site to the Uruk period. As this site is a single period one it thus gives an opportunity for focusing on the data as derived from a single period (Figs. 2–3). Uruk and Uruk-related evidence in Lit- tle Zab Basin, NW Iran The Little (or Lower) Zab River, along with the Great (or Upper) Zab, constitute two major branches of the Tigris River. Little Zab origi- nates from highlands of Piranshahr county in NW Iran and runs in the NW-SE direction, joining the Tigris just south of Al Zab in the Kurdistan region of Iraq. The river is approx. 400km (250mi) long and drains an area of c. 22 000km 2 (8500sq mi). This river is permanent and its water is drinkable (Khezri 2000.130). Despite the importance of this river in the formation of various ar- chaeological settlements, and its men- tions in Mesopotamian texts, only one important research-based archa- eological survey has been done here (Binandeh et al. 2012; Binandeh 2016). Evidence of Uruk materials in the Sardasht region has been report- ed from Tepe Baghi, Tepe Waliw, Tepe Molla Yousef and Tepe Badam- yar Rabat (Heidari 2006; 2007; Hei- dari, Afifi 2011). Binandeh also re- ported on Uruk materials in Tepe La- vin (Noberi et al. 2012), and intro- duced Tepe Gooman as another Uruk- related site during a Little Zab River survey (Binan- deh et al. 2012; Binandeh 2016) (Fig. 2). The Uruk-related materials of Tepe Badamyar Rabat Sardasht During 2006 and 2007 a surface survey was con- ducted (Heidari 2006; 2007; Heidari, Afifi 2011) Fig. 2. Distribution map of Uruk (related) sites with BRBs in Little Zab River, NW Iran. Fig. 3. Uruk-related site of Tepe Badamyar Rabat (view from NW). Akbar Abedi, Reza Heidari, Salah Salimi, and Nasir Eskandari 418 at the site to better understand the cultural materials and periodization of the site using the available evi- dence. In this regard typical materials have been found, among which Bevelled Rim Bowls (BRBs) could be considered as an important indicator of the relative chronology of the assemblages, attributing them to the famous Uruk period. Details of the find- ings will discussed below, and these are mostly pot- tery, lithic artefacts and small items such as orna- mental lithic beads. Pottery assemblage of Tepe Badamyar Rabat During the 2006 and 2007 survey, a total of 350 pot- sherds were collected and sampled from the Uruk period in Tepe Badamyar Rabat. The great majority of the pottery is handmade (97%). The fabric is cha- racterised by mixed chaff and grit (331 = 85.5%) temper; in chaff-tempered cases, the chaff is fine to medium, which invariably produces a chaff-faced ef- fect. Most of the pottery sherds are under-fired (84%), which indicates a lack of control of the heat- ing of the kiln. The pottery is mostly orange coloured (5YR-7/8) (88%), while the colours of the mono- chrome ware range from orange and brown, to buff (12%). The section can be monochrome and show a grey core. Most of the potsherds are simple and un- decorated, and in only two samples decoration is in- cised under the rim. The majority of the samples are typical rim and floor sherds. Mostly the forms of rims are simple, but there are also different styles, with everted, inverted and vertical types of rim used during pottery production. Two different forms of footed and round and flat- based pottery (jars, bowls) are evident in the assem- blages. Footed jars and bowls are predominant in the pottery assemblages. Spouted vessels could be considered as important part of the ceramic find- ings. Three broad shape and form categories can be distinguished from the Uruk Period at the site: bowls, pots and jars. Small bowls and jar are most numer- ous in all strata, and there are also large storage jars (Fig. 4). What is most important in the pottery as- semblage is the existence of 20 typical BRBs (Fig. 5). These all are handmade, coarse in treatment, under- fired with mixed inclusion temper. These BRBs have a close similarity with the Late Uruk Godin VI-V ma- terials (Young 1969; Gopnik, Rothman 2011). BRBs were reported by Heidari (2006; 2007; Heidari, Afifi 2011) for the first time in NW Iran during the Little Zab River survey. Later, Uruk materials were found in another survey at Little Zab River (Binandeh et al. 2012) and Tepe Lavin Piranshahr (Noberi et al. 2012). Lithic artefacts of Tepe Badamyar Rabat During the 2006 and 2007 survey of the site, 32 li- thic artefacts were collected in addition to pottery Fig. 4. Late Chalcolithic/Uruk pottery assemblage of Tepe Badamyar Rabat. New Uruk finds in NW Iran> Hasanlu VIII-VII and no Kura-Araxes culture evidence in southern parts of Lake Urmia 419 (Fig. 6). The lithic assemblages contained blades, micro-blades, flakes, and cores. Almost all the lithic findings of the Uruk period in Tepe Badamyar are made of chert, though there are four obsidian pie- ces in the assemblage. In most archaeological sites of south of Lake Urmia, obsidian has been reported as an item imported from the north (Armenia) and northwest (eastern Turkey), as reported in Tepe La- vin Piranshahr (Noberi et al. 2012). Small finds According to the survey it seems that only a small part of the site can be interpreted as a cemetery lo- cated at the slope of the mound. Surface of the site has been gradually washed away because of rain and annual flooding, and nowadays the site is also disrupted as ploughing agricultural land causes the dispersion of bones, beads and pottery. In the ceme- tery part of the site a lot of human and animal bones are visible. A detailed survey of this part revealed six ornamental stone beads (Fig. 7). Discussion A social, political, technical and economic revolutions caused many changes in southern Mesopotamia (now southern Iraq) and Southwest Iran at the turn of the 4 th and 3 rd millennia BC. This period is marked by the appearance of the city, the state and writing, making the transition between these two millennia a pivotal period in evolutionary thinking, and in that between prehistory and history. The end of the 4 th millennium BC in SW Iran is thus characterized by the emergence of state and writing, a period which was the outcome of the ‘Proto-Urban Revolution’ and the result of a long process begin- ning from the 5 th millennium. The term ‘Proto-Ela- mite’ originally referred to a script system, different from the Mesopotamian one, at the end of the 4 th millennium. It is currently used to describe a period, a ‘culture’ and a ‘civilization’. Based on the Uruk mo- del and its proto-urban expansion from south Meso- potamia (4 th millennium BC), the term has also been used to refer to a parallel phenomenon in Iran be- tween 3300/3100 and 2800/2600 BC. These two phenomena (Uruk and Proto-Elamite) are clearly dif- ferent in terms of chronology, material culture, script, and artistic originality. Nevertheless they are undoubtedly connected. New discoveries and studies have lead several scholars to a deconstruction of the Proto-Elamite phenomenon, whose terminology was used to define a theoretical generalization of the ‘Ur- ban Revolution’ over a large area and during a short time period. This idea suggests a significant change in Iranian society, which is supported by the archaeo- logical evidence (Naccaro 2017). The Uruk culture from 4100 to 3200 BC spread from southern Mesopotamia and appeared along the Tigris and Euphrates in Syria, and distributed up to the Fig. 5. Uruk-related Bevelled Rim Bowls pottery of Tepe Badamyar Rabat. Akbar Abedi, Reza Heidari, Salah Salimi, and Nasir Eskandari 420 west and southwest of Iran. Beside the whole mate- rial cultural, the Uruk phenomena is especially known for BRBs (Wright, Johnson 1975; Oates 1985; Mil- lard 1988). Roughly 75% of all ceramics found with Uruk culture sites are BRBs, so two major aspects make them historically significant to archaeologists. First, they are one of the earliest signs of mass pro- duction of a single product in history. Second, their suspected use as a form of payment to workers is another historic milestone, because there is no evi- dence of rationed payments before these (Millard 1988; Potts 2009). BRBs are small, undecorated, mass-produced clay bowls most common in the 4 th millennium BC. They constitute roughly three quarters of all ceramics found in Uruk culture sites, and are therefore a uni- que and reliable indicator of the presence of the Uruk culture in ancient Mesopotamia. BRBs origi- nated in the city state of Uruk in the mid-4 th millen- nium BC. As the Uruk culture expanded so did the production and use of these bowls. Although BRBs are considered a characteristic Mesopotamian cera- mic leitfossil of the mid- to late-4 th millennium BC, the first BRBs ever reported were actually discovered in Iran, at Susa, during the seasons of 1897/98 and 1898/99 (de Morgan 1900.Figs. 91, 118, 121). In the winter of 1902/3 at least one complete BRB, la- ter displayed in the Louvre, was recovered by Gau- tier and Lampre at Tepe Musiyan (Burton Brown 1946.36). The first BRBs in Mesopotamia were found at Tell Abu Shahrein (ancient Eridu) in 1918 (Camp- bell Thompson 1920.Figs. 3.4, 4.10), then six BRBs were found at Jamdat Nasr (Mackay 1931.Pl. 67.22– 23). According to Marc Van De Mieroop (2004) and Daniel Potts (2009), “Examples have been excavat- ed in the Zagros Mountains (e.g., Godin Tepe, Cho- ga Gavaneh), in northern (e.g., Tepe, Ozbeki, Tepe Sialk), central (e.g., Tepe Yahiya), and southern Iran (e.g., Nurabad). They were even found on the modern coast of Pakistan near the Gulf of Oman (Miri Qalat)” (Fig. 1). During the Late Chalolictich 1–3 (c. 4500–3700 BC) the most northern, western and southern parts of the Lake Urima region had a close relationship with northern Mesopotamian societies. Shortly after LC3 (around 4000 BC) this connection pattern disap- peared and most of the southern parts of the Lake Urmia were abandoned and vacated. During the mid- 4 th millennium BC a new connection was established between the western parts of Lake Urmia Late Chal- colithic societies and Eastern Anatolia (Voigt 1989. 286). At the end of the Pisdeli period (c. 4000 BC), the Ushnu-Solduz valley was abandoned by seden- tary farmers for some time. In the Urmia plain there is also a chronological gap between the sites. Pottery evidence shows that during the second half of the Fig. 6. Lithic artefacts of Tepe Badamyar Rabat with four obsidian artefacts. Fig. 7. Lithic ornament beads of Tepe Badamyar Rabat. New Uruk finds in NW Iran> Hasanlu VIII-VII and no Kura-Araxes culture evidence in southern parts of Lake Urmia 421 4 th millennium BC, the northern Mesopotamian re- lated material can be divided into three major zo- nes. 1 As Danti et al. (2004), as well as Mary M. Voigt (1989), suggest, the Ushnu-Solduz valley acts as a border zone between different forms of socio-econo- mic organization from south and north Mesopota- mia and the Kura-Araxes culture of the northern parts. It seems clear that the important strategic lo- cation of this region that it can be considered as an important border zone. As already mentioned, there is a huge gap in our understanding of the area from the south of the Lake Urima region, and especially Ushnu-Solduz, during Hasanlu VIIIA (Pisdeli) and VIIC (Kura-Araxes). North-western Iran, and especially the southern parts where we know how it fits into the Hasanlu se- quence, has strong Mesopotamian ties interspersed with episodes of northern, southern and eastern connection (Danti et al. 2004; Levine 1977; Dyson 1969). The distribution of related settlements with- in the Urmia basin suggests that Ushnu-Solduz was in some periods an important boundary area, a point of contact and sometimes conflict. In times of con- flict the valley may have served as a buffer zone, its settlements abandoned and the countryside empty or used by nomadic herders (Danti et al. 2004.584). New Uruk findings in Sardasht and the Little Zab Ri- ver basin demonstrate that the huge gap between Hasanlu VIIIA and VIIC could be the result of inaccu- rate and incomprehensive surveys in the whole of this region. Conclusion The Uruk phenomena is one of the well-known cul- tural periods in Mesopotamia, southwest and west- ern Iran, but to date has not been reported in north- western Iran. A new survey in the Little Zab River basin and especially in Tepe Badamyar Rabat, which is probable single period site with typical BRBs in this region, has raised the importance of this pheno- mena in north-western Iran. According to the chro- nology of pottery material, it seems clear that the assemblage should be dated to the second half of the 4 th millennium BC, and it shows close tie with the same material that has been found in western Iran, especially from Godin VI and V. BRBs help to date the assemblage to the Middle or Late Uruk pe- riod, although we need more detailed excavation to better understand the site chronology and sequence. The discovery of Uruk finds in NW Iran has present- ed a new research site that can help to overcome the current chronological ambiguities, although many of the issues may remain impossible to clarify. New ar- chaeological evidence from Rabat and other Uruk- related sites in the Little Zab River basin will defini- tely change researchers’ attitudes toward this large chronological gap between Hasanlu VIIIA and VIIC, and it is likely that, with further research, more de- tails and new finds (e.g., the Uruk culture) will emerge in the south Lake Urmia, which is often con- sidered one of the most important archaeological and chronological ambiguities in this area and in northern Mesopotamia in general. The present study was able to clarify some of the potential trade-eco- nomic communications in the 4 th millennium BC between the northwest of Iran, northern Mesopota- mia and Eastern Anatolian communities, and it is hoped that with further excavation at this site the cultures of the area will be better identified and de- scribed. Based on discussion outlined above, the rich agricultural intermountain area as well as strategic location of the Ushnu-Solduz valley were, most like- ly, one of the main factors why this place was the boundary between the political and economic insti- tutions of Mesopotamia and north-west Iran. Tepe Gawra shares numerous elements of material culture with the north-western Iran highland region; at the same time, the Gawra ceramic assemblage is surpri- singly distinct from those of the surrounding Uruk/ Jemdet Nasr settlements. One plausible interpreta- tion of Gawra is that it was a trading centre linking the Anatolian/Azerbaijani zone with Mesopotamia during the 4 th millennium BC. Finally, the emer- gence of the Kura-Aras culture in the northwest of Iran and the Caucasus on the one hand, and the east of Anatolia on the other, created another border area between the land south of Lake Urmia, and espe- cially the plains of Ushu-Solduz and the northern parts of Lake Urmia. This new findings suggests the coexistence of the Kura-Araxian in the north and the Uruk in the south. 1 One zone, centred in the intermontane valleys of western Azerbaijan and eastern Anatolia, can be defined on the basis of mono- chrome painted pottery and distinctive moulded ceramics. The second zone, lying primarily in the lowlands and foothills to the south, has been defined based on well-known Uruk (and perhaps Jemdet Nasr) ceramic types. A third zone, located in the central Zagros mountains, can be tentatively defined based on the occurrence of ceramics best known as the Godin VI assemblage, found at sites from Luristan to eastern Azerbaijan (Voigt 1989.287). Akbar Abedi, Reza Heidari, Salah Salimi, and Nasir Eskandari 422 Abedi A. 2017a. Excavation at at Tepe Silveh Piran- shahr: First Preliminary Report. Unpublished report pre- pared for Iranian Center for Archaeology. Teheran. 2017b. Iranian-Azerbaijan Pathway from the Zagros to the Caucasus: Kul Tepe and Dava Göz, New Neolithic Sites in NW Iran. Mediterranean Archaeology and Ar- chaeometry 17: 79–98. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.258086. Abedi A., Khatib Shahidi H., Chataigner C. H., Niknami K., Eskandari N., Kazempour M., Pirmohammadi A., Hosein- zadeh J., and Ebrahimi G. H. 2014. Excavation at Kul Tepe of (Jolfa), North-Western Iran, 2010: First Preliminary Re- port. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 51: 33–167. https://poj.peeters-leuven.be/content.php?url=article &id=3038717 Abedi A., Omrani B., and Karimifar A. 2015. Fifth and fourth millennium BC in north-western Iran: Dalma and Pisdeli revisited. Documenta Praehistorica 42: 321–338. https://doi.org/10.4312\dp.42.23 Abedi A., Omrani B. 2015. Kura-Araxes Culture and NW Iran after Yanik: New Perspectives from Excavations and Surveys. Paleorient 41(1): 55–68. Binandeh A. 2016. Signs of Commercial and Cultural Re- lation of the Societies of Northwestern Iran and Northern Mesopotamia in Late Chalcolithic. Journal of Historical Sociology 8(2): 21–37. http://journals.modares.ac.ir/article-25-8543-en.html Binandeh A., Nobari A., Neyestani J., and Vahdati Nasab H. 2012. A New Archaeological Research in Northwestern Iran: Prehistoric Settlements of Little Zab River Basin. The International Journal of Humanities 19(2): 27–41. http://journals.modares.ac.ir/article-27-9547-en.html Burton-Brown T. 1946. Studies in Third Millennium Hi- story. Luzac. London. 1951. Excavation in Azarbaijan, 1948. John Murray. London. Coon C. S. 1951. Cave Exploration in Iran 1949. Museum Monographs. The University Museum. University of Pen- nsylvania. Philadelphia. Crawford H. 1975. Geoy Tepe 1903 – Material in the Col- lection of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. Iranica An- tiqua 11: 1. Danti M. D., Voigt M. M., and Dyson R. H. 2004. The search for the Late Chalcolitic/Early Bronze Age Transition in the Ushnu-Solduz valley, Iran. In A. Sagona (ed.), A View from the Highlands. Archaeological Studies in Honour of Charley Burney. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement Series 12. Peeters Publishers. Leuven: 583–615. Dyson Jr. R. H., Muscarella O. W. 1989. Constructing the chronology and historical implications of Hasanlu IV. Iran 27(1): 1–27. Dyson R. H. 1969. A decade in Iran. Expedition 11(2): 39. 1965. Problems of Protohistoric Iran as seen from Ha- sanlu. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 24: 193–217. https://doi.org/10.1086/371815. 1968. The Archaeological Evidence of the Second Mil- lennium B.C. on the Persian Plateau. Cambridge Uni- versity Press. Cambridge. 1972. The Hasanlu project, 1961–1967. In M. Kiyani, A. Tajvidi, The Memorial Volume of the V th International Congress of Iranian Art and Archaeology 1968. Te- hran, Isfahan, Shiraz, 11 th –18 th April 1968. Vol. 1. Mi- nistry of Culture and Arts. Tehran: 39–58. 1976. Early Cultures of Solduz, Azerbaijan. In A. U. Pope (ed.), A Survey of Persian Art. Proceeding of the IV th International Congress of Iranian Art and Archaeo- logy, part A, New York, 1960. Asia Institute of Pahlavi University. Tehran: 2951–2970. Dyson R. H., Young T. C. 1960. The Solduz Valley, Iran: Pisdeli Tepe. Antiquity 34(133): 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00035122 Fallahian Y., Nozhati K. 2016. Dam rescue archaeological project in Tepe Baghi Sardasht. In Chubak (ed.), 15 th An- nual Symposium of Iran Cultural Heritage and Tourism Research Center: 356–365. Hamlin C. 1975. Dalma Tepe. Iran 13(1): 111–127. Heidari R. 2006. Archaeological survey in Lower-Zab Ri- ver Basin. First Preliminary Report. Unpublished report prepared for CHHTO of Western Azerbaijan Province. 2007. The results of second season of archaeological survey in Tepe Rabat in Sardasht. The Collection of articles in Iran second annual archaeological confe- rence. Tehran. Heidari R., Afifi R. 2011. Earthen Evidence of Protolitera- te (Rim Bowl) for the First time in North-Western of Iran. In O. Belli (ed.), The third international symposium of References Morgan J. de. 1900. Recherches archéologiques, 1 er série. Fouilles à Suse en 1897–1898 et 1898–1899. Leroux. Paris. Naccaro H. 2017. Le phénomène Proto-Élamite et la con- struction archéologique de la révolution proto-urbaine en Iran du Sud-Ouest. In C. Filet, S. Höltkemeier, C. Perriot, and J. Rolland (ed.), Révolutions: L’archéologie face aux renouvellements des sociétés. Actes de la 10 e journée doctorale d’archéologie. Éditions de la Sorbonne. Paris. Oates J. 1985. Tell Brak: Uruk pottery from the 1984 sea- son. Iraq 47: 175–186. Potts D. 2009. Bevel-Rim Bowls and Bakeries: Evidence and Explanations from Iran and the Indo-Iranian Border- lands. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 61: 1–23. Solecki R. S. 1969. Survey in Western Azerbaijan. Iran 7: 189–190. Stein M. A. 1940. Old Routes of Western Iran. Macmillan and co., Ltd. London. Swiny S. 1975. Survey in Northwest Iran. East and West 25: 77–69. Thompson R. C. 1920. IV. The British Museum Excava- tions at Abu Shahrain in Mesopotamia in 1918. Archaeo- logia 70: 101–144. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026134090001105X Van de Mieroop M. 2004. A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000–323 BC. Blackwell Publishing. Oxford. Voigt M. M. 1983. Hasanlu, Volume I: Hajji Firuz Tepe, Iran – The Neolithic Settlement (Vol. 1). University Mu- seum Monograph, Book 50. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Philadelphia. 1989. Northwest Iran in the fourth millennium BC. Pa- léorient 15(1): 286–288. Voigt M. M., Dyson R. H. Jr. 1992. The chronology of Iran, ca. 8000–2000B.C. In R. W. Ehrich (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology I. Chicago: 122–178. Wright H. T., Johnson G. A. 1975. Population, exchange, and early state formation in southwestern Iran. Ameri- can Anthropologist 77(2): 267–289. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1975.77.2.02a00020 New Uruk finds in NW Iran> Hasanlu VIII-VII and no Kura-Araxes culture evidence in southern parts of Lake Urmia 423 Mount Ararat and Noah’s Ark. Agri Ibrahim Cecen Uni- versitesi. Istanbul: 89–99. Helwing B. 2004. The Late Chalcolithic Period in the Northern Zagros. A Reappraisal of the Current Status of Research. In M. Azarnoush (ed.), Proceedings of the In- ternational Symposium on Iranian Archaeology: North- western Region. Iranian Center of Archaeological Re- search. Tehran: 11–24. Kargar B., Binandeh A. 2009. A preliminary report of ex- cavations at Rabat Tepe, Northwestern Iran. Iranica Anti- qua 44: 113–129. https://poj.peeters-leuven.be/content. php?url=article&id=2034377 Kearton R. R. B. 1969. Survey in Azerbaijan. Iran 7: 186– 187. Khezri S. 2000. Physical geography of Mokriyan Kurdi- stan. Iran. Naghoos Press. Tehran. Kroll S. 1994. Festungen und Siedlungen in Iranisch- Azarbaidjan. Untersuchungen zur Siedlungs-und Terri- torialgeschichte des Urmia-See-Gebietes in vorislami- scher Zeit. Unpublished habilitation. LMU München. Mün- chen. 2004. Aurel Stein in Hasan Ali, Bemalte Frühbronzezeit- liche Keramik im Gebiet des Urmia-Sees: ‘Hasan Ali Ware’. In A. Sagona (ed.), A View from the Highlands. Archaeological Studies in Honour of Charley Burney. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement Series 12. Pe- eters Publishers. Leuven: 677–692. 2005. Early Bronze Age settlement patterns in the Oru- miye Basin. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 37: 115–121. Levine L. D. 1977. East-west trade in the late Iron Age: A view from the Zagros. In Le plateau iranien et l’Asie cen- trale des origines a la conquete islamique. Colloques in- ternationaux du Centre national de la recherche scien- tifique 567. Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique. Paris: 171–186. Mackay E. 1931. Report on Excavations at Jemdet Nasr, Iraq. Anthropology, Memoirs 1(3): 219–303. Millard A. R. 1988. The bevelled-rim bowls: their purpose and significance. Iraq 50: 49–57.