Archaeometallurgy in Europe

2nd International conference

17-21 June, 2007

Aquileia, Italy
COMPOSITIONS AND SOME CONSIDERATIONS ON THE PROVENANCE OF
ARMENIAN EARLY BRONZE AGE COPPER ARTEFACTS

KHACHATUR MELIKSETIAN – Institute of Geological Sciences, Armenian National Academy of

Sciences, Yerevan, Armenia, e-mail: khcho@dolphin.am
ERNST PERNICKA – Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte und Archäologie des Mittelalters der
Universität Tübingen, Germany; and Curt-Engelhorn-Zentrum Archäometrie, Mannheim,
Germany, e-mail: ernst.pernicka@cez-archaeometrie.de
RUBEN BADALYAN – Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Armenian National Academy of
Sciences, Yerevan, Armenia, e-mail: rubbadal@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT

This paper presents the trace element compositions of some Neolithic and Early Bronze Age
copper-based artefacts recently excavated in Armenia. Chemical compositions and lead isotopy of
Armenian EBA copper based artefacts and local ores are compared to reveal their possible
relationships.

The analysed artefacts are associated with the Early Bronze Age Kura-Araxes culture as well as
some early copper objects from Aratashen dating back to the Neolithic period. The majority of the
analysed artefacts are copper-arsenic alloys and pure copper, but some tin bronzes, copper-
arsenic-tin and copper-arsenic-lead alloys are also detected.

Lead isotope analyses of artefacts and ores help us conclude that it is highly probable that north
Armenian copper ores were the sources for part of analysed Early Bronze Age artefacts,
originating from the Ararat valley, the Shirak plateau, and northern Armenia. However, it has to
be noted that the lead isotope signature of the north Armenian massive sulphide copper ores is
partly overlapping the field of lead isotope compositions of other regional deposits (e.g. copper
ores of the eastern Anatolia).

Some Armenian copper ore samples exhibit unusual “radiogenic” lead, as well as “old” lead
isotope fingerprints. It is noteworthy that such a lead isotope signature is also found in some of
the analysed artefacts.

Some rare early tin bronzes from Talin are characterised by lead isotope ratios similar to other
early tin bronzes in the Aegean, the Persian Gulf, Dagestan and other regions. The concentrations
of Ni and Ag in some of these artefacts are relatively high, which is unusual for most of the
Armenian copper ores. Furthermore, their lead isotope compositions are not matching the local
ores so we conclude that they were imported from other regions.

KEYWORDS

Armenia, Neolithic copper objects, Early Bronze Age copper based artefacts, native copper, early
tin bronzes, arsenic bronzes, lead isotope analysis, copper ores.
INTRODUCTION

In this paper we present the chemical composition and lead isotope geochemistry of Armenian
EBA copper based artefacts and copper ores. Most of the analysed artefacts are associated with
the Early Bronze Age Kura-Araxes culture (dating from the mid fourth millennium to the last
quarter of the third millennium BC). Analyses of some recent finds of copper objects from
Aratashen dating back to the Neolithic period (first quarter of the VI millennium BC) are of
particular interest. New analyses of EBA artefacts from the Gegharot settlement (recent finds) and
copper objects from a tomb near Aragats are also presented in this study.

It should be noted that in the south Caucasus and adjacent regions metallurgy appeared early, and
it has long been assumed that this may be related to the presence of dozens of large and small
copper deposits. Numerous Eneolithic, Early Bronze Age and some Neolithic finds of copper-
based artefacts and especially the abundance of arsenical copper and some early tin bronzes have
supported this assumption.

Many of the large copper deposits in Armenia were exploited from prehistoric times till the 19th
century [7]. Some of the deposits (Alaverdi, Shamlug, Kapan, Kadjaran, Agarak) are still in
operation today. Therefore, in most cases the oxidation zones of the deposits as well as any
remains of ancient workings were destroyed. In such conditions geochemical investigations,
especially the lead isotope analysis of copper-based artefacts and comparison with copper ores are
the only reliable methods of identification of the early exploitation of these deposits.

ARTEFACTS AND THEIR CHEMICAL COMPOSITION

In this paper we present the composition of 19 recently analysed artefacts (listed in Table 1) and
discuss the composition of 48 artefacts analysed earlier [12, 13]. To determine the chemical
composition of 19 artefacts, their samples were analysed by RFA in the Curt-Engelhorn-Zentrum
Archäometrie, Mannheim, Germany, in 2006. The results are summarised in Table 1.

Five main chemical groups of Armenian EBA artefacts were classified earlier [12, 13]: pure
copper, copper-arsenic, copper-arsenic-tin, copper-tin and copper-arsenic-lead alloys. In addition
to the five main chemical groups, trace element fingerprints of the artefacts helped to reveal a
group characterised by high nickel and silver content (see Figure 1). Artefacts with similar
characteristics are known also from the Nahal Mishmar hoard [19] and Arslantepe [8]. In general
high As/Sb ratios are characteristics of the majority of the analysed artefacts [12,13].

Recently analysed metal objects originating from Neolithic Aratashen fit into the pure copper
group and the majority of EBA artefacts from Aragats and Gegharot are copper–arsenic alloys,
although their arsenic content is quite variable. Finally, some beads of the necklace of Gegharot
belong to copper-arsenic-lead alloy group.

The earliest metal objects are known from eastern Anatolia and northern Mesopotamia and date
back to the end of the 8th millennium BC [3]. For a long time metal objects from the Eneolithic
settlement of Teghut [20] were considered to be the earliest well dated metal finds in Armenia.
Metal objects from Teghut were made of arsenical copper [6]. Recently during the excavations of
the settlement of Aratashen Neolithic copper beads and their fragments as well as some pieces of
copper ore minerals - malachite and azurite - were discovered. The Aratashen settlement in the
Ararat valley has been excavated since 1999 by R. Badalyan and P. Lombard in the framework of
the French-Armenian “Caucasus” mission directed by C. Chataigner.
Table 1. Chemical and trace element composition of metal artefacts from Aratashen, Aragats and Gegharot determined by RFA
All values are in mg/kg except the ones for copper.

Sample Cu % Ni Fe As Se Pb Bi Ag Sn Sb Te

Aratashen, Neolithic
FG-050599 A 97 300 28000 1390 < 50 <100 < 50 110 100 < 50 170
FG-050599 B 96 500 32000 4300 < 50 500 120 200 180 < 50 110
Beads and their
FG-050599 E 100 < 100 1300 330 140 <100 < 50 280 120 < 50 < 80
fragments
FG-050599 G 96 300 33000 1140 < 50 600 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 80
FG-050599 H 99 200 4700 520 < 50 <100 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 80
FG-050599 I 94 410 40000 600 470 <100 480 700 2670 270 < 80
Aragats, EBA I, Kura-Araxes culture
Bead FG-050600 91 180 <500 80000 480 4900 <50 280 <50 1490 100
Dagger FG-050601 95 2000 2500 41100 120 200 <50 100 <50 790 180
Spiral bracelet FG-050602 96 < 100 <500 41900 130 <100 <50 470 <50 <50 <80
Spiral ring FG-050603 97 100 <500 29000 < 50 100 <50 220 <50 350 <80
Bead FG-050604 92 < 100 1200 72000 360 900 120 60 <50 80 <80
Spiral bead FG-030653 99 140 < 50 10300 < 50 400 < 50 120 < 50 350 <80
Gegharot, EBA, Kura-Araxes culture
FG-030654 95 <100 < 50 46000 140 200 < 50 110 < 50 100 <80
Beads, Fig. 3A
FG-030655 94 <100 < 50 61000 130 <100 < 50 400 < 50 < 50 <80
Bead, Fig. 3B FG-030656 84 <100 < 50 158000 < 50 300 < 50 130 < 50 750 <80
Bead, Fig. 3D FG-030657 81 <100 1200 186000 < 50 <100 < 50 210 < 50 250 <80
Bead, Fig. 3C FG-030658 80 <100 < 50 194000 60 600 < 50 200 < 50 < 50 <80
FG-030659 85 <100 < 50 32000 270 91000 < 50 120 < 50 250 <80
Beads, Fig. 3E
FG-030660 87 120 800 82000 80 37000 < 50 250 < 50 450 <80

Co and Zn concentrations in artefacts were analysed, but were always below the detection limit of 50 mg/kg and 1000 mg/kg respectively.
 Figure. 1. Plot of Ag versus Ni for Armenian copper ores and copper based
artefacts. Some artefacts from Talin, Shirak and Harich exhibit high
concentrations of nickel and silver. Concentrations were recalculated to a
total of 100% including copper.

A B

Figure 2. Fragments of the bracelet of Aratashen (sixth millennium BC).

A. Bracelet in situ; B. Beads after cleaning.
In the lower level II of Aratashen some extremely rare Shulaveri-Shomu potsherds were
discovered [1]. Level IIb yielded also five painted potsherds with typological parallels in the
middle and late phases of Halaf culture [1]. In spite of some obvious similarities, it should be
mentioned that most cultural features of Aratashen Neolithic settlement profoundly differ from
the contemporary cultures of the northern Near East and resemble the regional contemporaneous
culture of Shulaveri-Shomu phases I-II in the Kura basin more closely [1].

The finds of azurite and malachite derive from level IId of Aratashen (5905-5711 cal. BC 2σ),
another piece of malachite was discovered in the later level I. Crude and worked fragments of
malachite and azurite minerals were found at different Neolithic sites in northern Mesopotamia
and eastern Anatolia from the 10th millennium (Hallan Cemi, Cayönü, Asikli) up to the 6th
millennium (Hassuna, Yarim Tepe I and II) [17].

In level IIb (5878-5775 cal. BC 2σ) of Aratashen a bracelet was found in situ of about 6 cm in
diameter made of 57 partly oxidised copper beads and their fragments (see Figure 2). These beads
and fragments weighing from 0.37 to 0.72 gr. each (total weight 12.55 gr.) were made of a copper
foil rolled up around a stem. This technique and their shapes are similar to the tradition known
from Neolithic sites in northern Mesopotamia and eastern Anatolia from the beginning of the 8th
millennium to the end of the 6th millennium [15]. In the 6th millennium they appeared in north-
eastern Mesopotamia at Yarim Tepe I, Yarim Tepe II (Sinjar) and at Chagar Bazar (Khabur
region). Beads made of rolled copper foil have also been found at sites of the southern Caucasus
belonging to the Shulaveri-Shomu culture (6th-5th millennium BC): Gargalar Tepesi,
Chalagantepe and other sites.[4, 10].

The Neolithic beads from Aratashen turned out to be made of pure copper (see Table 1). Some of
the artefacts contain considerable iron, which can possibly be explained by surface oxidation of
the samples and their contamination with iron. In addition, native copper is often associated with
iron minerals that may not have been separated. It is most likely that these objects were made of
native copper as smelted copper usually contains higher impurity concentrations (especially As,
Sb, and Co). This is consistent with other contemporary copper objects, as it is generally assumed
that cold hammered or annealed native copper was used before the fifth millennium BC. A more
detailed investigation of these artefacts by neutron activation is required to confirm this
assumption.

Five artefacts from the tomb at Aragats dating back to EBA I (early stage of the Kura-Araxes
culture) are homogeneous in their chemical composition and consist of arsenical copper. The
arsenic contents of these artefacts range from 2.9% to 8%. One bead, sample FG-050600,
contains a considerable amount of lead (0.49%), but most likely this is not the result of alloying
as lead is a quite common component of copper and polymetallic ores of Armenia and adjacent
areas. The dagger from Aragats contains 2000 mg/kg nickel, distinguishing it from other artefacts
from the tomb. In spite of its high nickel content this dagger cannot be clustered into the high
nickel and silver group of Armenian EBA artefacts defined earlier [12, 13, see also Figure 1], as
all artefacts belonging to this group also contain silver in high concentrations while the dagger
from Aragats contains only 100 mg/kg of silver.

The chemical composition of the metal beads of the Gegharot necklace consisting of 99 metal
(total weight 144.5 g), 88 chalcedony and 217 talc beads [9] is of particular interest. A possible
reconstruction of this magnificent necklace is shown on Figure 3. The EBA-LBA settlement of
Gegharot was excavated by an American-Armenian expedition directed by R. Badalyan and A.
Smith [16].
 Figure 3. The necklace of Gegharot (EBA): left – possible reconstruction, right –
drawings of individual elements
A. Double-voluted beads (FG-030654, FG-030655); B. Cylindrically shaped bead
with raised transversal rims, (FG-030656); C. Cylindrically shaped bead with
parallel oblique cuttings (FG-030658); D. Barrel-shaped bead, (FG-030657); E.
Two types of teardrop-shaped beads: conical and spherical beads (FG-030659, FG-
030660).

In the discussion of the beads of the necklace we include a spiral bead from the same context of
Gegharot (sample FG-030653): this object consists of almost pure copper and contains 1% As,
distinguishing it from the beads of the necklace. The chemical compositions of the analysed beads
are given in Table 1.

The beads available for analysis represent all typological types of metal items of the necklace and
are shown on Figure 3. In case of the double-voluted (Figure 3, A) and teardrop-shaped (Fig 3, E)
beads we selected two different beads for analysis to check the chemical identity of similar
objects in the necklace. The compositions of two double-voluted beads turned out to be almost
identical. Both consist of a copper-arsenic alloy, containing 4.6 and 6.1 % As. All analysed beads
are characterised by high concentrations of arsenic ranging from 3.2% to 19.4%. Three types of
beads (cylindrically shaped with raised transversal rims, cylindrically shaped with parallel oblique
cuttings and barrel-shaped) are presented in Figure 3; B, C, D are characterised by extremely high
As contents: 15.8%, 19.4% and 18.6% respectively.

The conical and spherical teardrop-shaped beads (Figure 3, E) contain 9.1% and 3.7% lead and
3,2% and 8,2% arsenic, respectively, and consist of leaded arsenical copper. Quite similar
spherical teardrop-shaped beads are also known from an EBA I tomb at Aragats. But as is shown
above, the teardrop-shaped beads from Aragats do not contain considerable amounts of lead (max.
0.49%, see Table 1). Another EBA artefact made of a copper-arsenic-lead alloy (13% As and
4.3% lead) derives from Harich [13]. Lead is often associated with copper ores and is a frequent
trace element in copper based artefacts. As the concentration of lead in the Harich and Gegharot
artefacts range from 3.7 to 9.1% intentional alloying may be assumed. In the EBA alloying with
lead is rare but has been assumed for some artefacts in the Aegean and other regions of
Mediterranean [14]. However, Aegean copper-lead alloys are not high in arsenic so that it can be
assumed that this unusual type of metal – copper-arsenic-lead alloy – was used for making the
decorative objects in Gegharot and Harich settlements.

Figure 4. Statistical distribution of arsenic concentrations in Armenian EBA

artefacts. A - Tools and weapons (16 samples), B- Decorative objects and copper
from crucibles (54 samples).

The compositions of cylindrically and barrel-shaped beads present a remarkable

archaeometallurgical dilemma as they are fresh, not oxidised, and are characterised by extremely
high arsenic contents (ranging from 15% to 20%). Arsenic becomes extremely volatile at the
temperature of copper smelting so it is very difficult to produce an alloy with more than 3-4%
As. Thus the production technology of these interesting objects remains unknown and requires
more detailed investigations. But it is noteworthy that, in general, high arsenic concentrations in
Armenian EBA artefacts are typical for decorative objects rather than tools and weapons (see
Figure 4).
Thus, the metal of the beads of Gegharot necklace can be divided into three chemical groups:

1. Arsenical copper (with 4.6%-6.1% As). Double-voluted beads (Figure 3, A) were made of this
type of metal. Such copper-based alloys are quite abundant in the Eneolithic and the EBA in the
south Caucasus and Anatolia regions. These alloys do not contain considerable concentrations of
other trace elements like silver, nickel or gold. It is noteworthy that one of the analysed double-
voluted bead is of reddish “copper” colour, (4.6% As), another one with a higher As content
(6.1% As) is gray, “silvery” coloured.

2. Arsenical copper with extremely high (15.8%-19.4%) concentrations of arsenic. The

following parts of the necklace were made of this type of metal: cylindrically shaped beads with
raised transversal rims, cylindrically shaped beads with parallel oblique cuttings and barrel
shaped beads shown on Figure 3; B, C, D respectively. It is noteworthy that these alloys are gray,
”silvery” coloured, with an insignificant yellowish, “bronze” shade.
3. Copper-arsenic-lead alloys. Two types of teardrop-shaped beads (conical and spherical, Figure
3, E) turned out to be made of this unusual type of copper-based alloy. The objects made of this
alloy are gray, ”silvery” coloured.

The beads with extremely high arsenic contents and Cu+As+Pb alloys have a more “noble”
appearance and are harder than the other beads. Obviously the chemical composition of different
beads is not accidental and it can be assumed that different items were intentionally made of
different alloys. Presumably the ancient craftsman used alloys with different colours to give the
necklace an extraordinary, “precious” appearance and emphasize its high artistic value.

LEAD ISOTOPE ANALYSES OF ARMENIAN EARLY BRONZE AGE ARTEFACTS

AND SOME CONSIDERATIONS ON THEIR PROVENANCE.

The introduction of lead isotope analysis (LIA) to archaeometallurgy decisively increased the
chances to relate copper artefacts to their parent ore sources [5]. The main advantage of using
LIA is that the lead isotope composition, being an important geochemical characteristic of an ore
deposit, remains unchanged during the metallurgical processes. Lead isotope data of Armenian
EBA artefacts and copper ores were reported in detail earlier [13, 12]. Here we discuss some
significant aspects relating to the origin of Armenian Early Bronze Age artefacts.

A large variation of lead isotope ratios is typical for Armenian copper ore deposits. Presumably
the complex geological structure of the small territory of Armenia with different blocks
representing fragments of island arcs, continental plates and an oceanic core affects the lead
isotope signature of regional ores. It should be stated that lead isotope inhomogeneity can be
found not only within metallogenic zones and age groups but even within a single ore deposit. Of
course, this makes the interpretation of lead isotope data of artefacts and their comparison with
ores quite complicated and precludes definitive statements about the sources of copper in the
Early Bronze Age. On the other hand, obvious relations between isotope compositions of
Armenian ores and some artefacts can be observed (see Figure 5).

Three groups of ores have been defined based on their lead isotope ratios: “Radiogenic”,
“ordinary” and “old” lead. This grouping is somewhat arbitrary and does not characterise ore
deposits or metallogenic provinces, because samples from some of the investigated ore deposits
can be found in all three groups. It is suggested that such grouping of lead isotope data of the ores
can be helpful for further interpretations and relation between ores and artefacts. The “ordinary”
lead overlaps with the Anatolian lead isotope field, generally matching the isotope composition of
the ores of the Pontides. Parts of the “radiogenic” and “old” lead groups are located outside the
“Anatolian” field demonstrating wider variations of lead isotope compositions in Armenian ores.

The comparison of artefacts and ores suggests a significant probability that north Armenian
copper ores and/or isotopically similar ores from eastern Turkey could be related to some of the
analysed artefacts from Early Bronze Age settlements in the Ararat valley, the Shirak plateau, and
north Armenia. This conclusion is based on isotope composition of artefacts matching the
“ordinary” and “radiogenic” lead groups of Armenian ores, as well as on their trace element
composition, which is generally fitting Armenian ores. These artefacts match the “ordinary”,
“radiogenic” and “Anatolian” compositional fields and it can be assumed that they were produced
from local copper ores.

On the contrary, some artefacts do not match Armenian and Anatolian ores isotopically and were
most likely imported.
 Figure 5. Diagram of the 207Pb/206Pb vs. 208Pb/206Pb in analysed artefacts
combined with isotope compositional field of Armenian ores: "Radiogenic" lead,
"ordinary" lead and "old" lead. Dotted lines show the lead isotope fields of ores
from Anatolia, Oman as well as from Feinan, Jordan.

The lead isotope ratios of the EBA tin bronze from Talin is comparable to most contemporaneous
tin bronzes from Troy [14], other sites in Aegean [2, 14, 18], the Persian Gulf [21] and Dagestan
[11]. However, the provenance of these tin-copper alloys remains so far unknown. Three axes
from Gyumri also exhibit unusually high 208Pb/206Pb and 207Pb/206Pb and low 206Pb/204Pb isotope
ratios suggesting the import of copper, possibly from sources further south with similar lead
isotope fingerprints. Ores from Jordan and Oman exhibit generally fitting 208Pb/206Pb and
207
Pb/206Pb ratios (see Figure 5). Although the lead isotope characteristics of some of these
artefacts are within or close to the “old” lead group of Armenian ores, these artefacts cannot be
related to local sources, as it is not quite clear how widespread such ores occur in Armenia. Also
the trace element compositions of these artefacts are different from other Armenian artefacts and
copper ores, especially regarding their high concentrations of nickel and silver.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to pay our respects to our colleagues, Dr. Kirstin Kasper, Dr. Armine
Hayrapetyan, Dr. Christine Chataigner and Dr. Pavel Avetissyan, for their help and assistance.
We acknowledge ProjectDiscovery! foundation for financial support for travel to the Conference.
REFERENCES

1) BADALYAN R., P. LOMBARD, P. AVETISSYAN, C. CHATAIGNER, J. CHABOT, R. VILA,

R.HOVSEPYAN, G.WILLCOX, H.PESSIN. New data on the late prehistory of the Southern
Caucasus. The excavations at Aratashen (Armenia) Preliminary Report. Les cultures du
Caucase (VIe-IIIe millénaires avant notre ére). Leurs relations avec le Proche – Orient. Ed.
B. Lyonnet. Paris (2007) pp.37-61.

2) BEGEMANN F., F. S. SCHMITT-STRECKER, E. PERNICKA. The metal finds from Thermi III-V:
a chemical and lead isotope-study, Studia Troica. (1992). 2, 219-39.

3) BRAIDWOOD, R.J., H CAMBEL, AND SCHIRMER. Beginnings of village Communities in

Southeastern Turkey: Çayönü Tepesi, 1978 and 1979 (1981). Journ. Field Archaeology 8,
pp. 249-258.

4) CHATAIGNER C. La Transcaucasie au Neolithique et au Chalcolithiquie. BAR International

series 634. Oxford (1995) Tempus Reparatum.

5) GALE N.H., Z.A. STOS-GALE Bronze Age copper sources in the Mediterranean, Science.
(1982) 216, 11-19.

6) GEVORGYAN A.C. A History of Ancient Metallurgy of Armenian Highland. (1980)

Yerevan, 127 p. (in Russian)

7) GOGINIAN S.E., Report of special expedition to study ancient metallurgical slags and
exploitation., (1964), Unpublished report, 190 p.

8) HAUPTMANN A., S. SCHMITT-STRECKER, F. BEGEMANN, A. PALMIERI. Chemical

composition and lead isotopy of metal objects from the “Royal” tomb and other related
finds at Arslantepe, Eastern Anatolia. (2002). Paléorient vol.28/2, 43-70.

9) HAYRAPETYAN A. Early Bronze Age necklace from Gegharot. Culture of Ancient Armenia.
Proceedings of Republican Scientific conference. Yerevan. (2005). p. 78-85. (in Armenian).

10) KIGURADZE T.V. Neolitische Siedlungen von Kvemo-Kartli, Georgien. (1995) Munichen,
Beck.

11) KOHL P.L. Bronze production and utilization in south-eastern Dagestan, Russia: c3600-
1900BC. Appendix: L. WEEKS, Summary of Velikent compositional and lead isotope
analyses. In Book: The Beginnings of Metallurgy in the Old World. Edited by
M.BARTELHEIM, E.PERNICKA and R. KRAUSE. (2002). TU Bergakademie Freiberg.

12) MELIKSETIAN KH, E. PERNICKA. Geochemical characterisation of Armenian Early Bronze

Age metal artefacts and their relation to copper ores. (2007) Eurasia Antiqua (in press).

13) MELIKSETIAN KH., E. PERNICKA. R. BADALYAN, P. AVETISSYAN. Geochemical

characterisation of Armenian Early Bronze age metal artefacts and their relation to copper
ores. Proceedings, International conference “Archaeometallurgy in Europe”. 2003, 24-26
September (2003), Milan, Italy, Vol. 1. 597-606.
14) PERNICKA, E., F. BEGEMANN, S. SCHMITT-STRECKER, A.P. GRIMANIS. On the composition
and provenance of metal objects from Poliochni and Lemnos. (1990) Oxfrod Journal of
Archaeology.

15) SCHOOP U.D. Aspects of Early Metal use in Neolithic Mespopotamia. In Hauptmann A.,
Pernicka E, Rehren T. and Yalçhin Ü. (eds), The beginnings of Metallurgy. Proceedings of
the International conference “The beginnings of the Metallurgy” Bochum (1995) pp 31-
36.

16) SMITH A.T., R. BADALYAN, P. AVETISYAN, M. ZARDARYAN. Early Complex Societies in

Southern Caucasia: A Preliminary Report on the 2002 investigations by Project ArAGATS
on the Tsakahovit Plain, Republic of Armenia. American journal of Archaeology. (2004),
108, pp 1-41

17) STECH T. Aspects of Early Metallurgy in Mesopotamia and Anatolia. In: Pigott V, (Ed.)
The Archaeometallurgy of the Asian Old World University Museum Monograph 89.
University Museum Symposium Series vol. VII. MASCA research papers in Science and
Technology. Vol. 16, pp 59-71, (1999) University of Pennsylvania.

18) STOS-GALE Z.A., N.H. GALE, G.R. GILMORE. Early Bronze Age Trojan metal sources and
Anatolians in the Cyclades, Oxford Journal of Archaeology (1984). 11(2). 155-77.

19) TADMOR M., D. KEDEM, F. BEGEMANN, A. HAUPTMANN, E. PERNICKA, S. SCHMITT-

STRECKER. The Nahal Mishmar Hoard from the Judean Desert:Technology, Composition
and Provenance. Atiqot, (1995) VII.

20) TOROSYAN R.M., Early farming settlement of Teghut. Yerevan (1976) 110 p. (in
Armenian).

21) WEEKS,. L. United Arab Emirates: new data regarding the ‘tin problem’ in Western Asia.
(1999) Antiquity 73, 49-64.