A Dictionary of Archaeology

Umm Dabaghiyah Small settlement interpreted as a trading post of the early or proto-HASSUNA culture (i.e. early Pottery Neolithic, 6th millennium BC), situated in the southern Jazira desert of Iraq, some distance south of the edge of the modern dry-farming region. The site was excavated in 1971–3 by Diana Kirkbridge, who identified it as a community of hunters rather than farmers. The subsistence pattern combined consumption of domesticated cereals (perhaps imported from the north) alongside a dependence on the meat of onager, wild asses and gazelles. Her excavations not only uncovered houses which were apparently entered via the roof, but also three blocks of small structures where the skins of onagers and gazelles may have been stored. One of the houses was decorated with a red and white wall-painting apparently depicting an onager hunt using a form of ‘hunting’ kite, a type of funnel-shaped trap used in Middle Eastern deserts as late as the 20th century AD. Kirkbridge therefore interprets the village as a specialized trading community, and it has been hypothesized that there may have been similar settlements elsewhere in Neolithic Mesopotamia, trading in materials such as salt or bitumen. Such communities – essentially benefiting from the accumulation of surpluses in raw materials – would have been early prototypes for the first cities in Mesopotamia.

Preliminary reports by D. Kirkbridge in Iraq 34–7 (1972–5); D. Kirkbridge: ‘Umm Dabaghiyah’, Fifty years of Mesopotamian discovery, ed. J. Curtis (London, 1982), 11–21.

IS

unconstrained clustering Technique of intra-site SPATIAL ANALYSIS, developed by Robert Whallon (see MASK SITE), following suggestions that CLUSTER ANALYSIS could be useful in such studies. It divides a site into zones or clusters in which the proportions of different artefact types are broadly consistent. It is claimed to avoid the need for assumptions about the number and shape of clusters, but suffers from a tendency to create spurious clusters.

R. Whallon: ‘Unconstrained clustering for the analysis of spatial distributions in archaeology’, Intrasite spatial analysis in archaeology, ed. H. Hietala (Cambridge, 1984), 242–77.

CO

underwater archaeology see MARITIME

ARCHAEOLOGY

UPPER PALAEOLITHIC 595

Uneˇ tice Bronze Age cemetery site near Prague which lends its name to a wider cultural complex of the Early Bronze Age in the Czech Republic, southwest Poland and south Germany. Small, flat inhumation cemeteries are characteristic, in contrast to the succeeding TUMULUS COMPLEX. Grave-goods include pottery, flint arrowheads and a limited range of metal objects such as pins, simple torcs, spiral pendants, with daggers and more developed bracelets becoming more common as the period goes on. There are also limited numbers of barrow burials, with a few outstandingly large and rich burial mounds, notably Helmsdorf and Leubingen in Saxo-Thuringia, Germany. The latter barrow (34 m in diameter and 8.5 high) covered an elaborately constructed wooden mortuary chamber containing two skeletons, one probably of an older man, presumably a chieftain, the other probably of an adolescent girl. Grave-goods included wood-working implements, small daggers, and gold ornaments (large pins, a spiral bead, bracelet).

I. Billig: Die Ausjetitzer Kultur in Sachsen (Dresden, 1958); M. Gimbutas: Bronze Age cultures in Central and Eastern Europe (The Hague, 1965), 245–75.

RJA

Upper Palaeolithic The final division of the PALAEOLITHIC, dated in Europe to between about 40,000 BP and 10,000 BP, and preceding the MESOLITHIC. The border between the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic industries is usually defined by the common use of blade, as opposed to flake, technology. It should be noted, however, that, outside Europe, the presence of blade-orientated assemblages stratified between Middle Palaeolithic layers at sites such as KLASIES RIVER MOUTH in Africa and Mount Carmel in the Near East slightly complicates this definition.

Although the Upper Palaeolithic was originally defined with reference to its stone typology, it became closely associated with a series of changes that are still generally assumed to be interconnected: the appearance of ANATOMICALLY MODERN HUMANS; the introduction of all or part of the AURIGNACIAN stone tool typology and a developed bone industry; the development of specialized, co-operative hunting strategies; alterations in settlement patterns, including the construction of relatively permanent houses or huts in some areas; the development of a multiplicity of distinct ‘cultures’; a growing population; and, most famously of all, the advent of CAVE ART.

Complicating this analysis is the fact that, in the

596 UPPER PALAEOLITHIC

Near East, anatomically modern populations seem to have established themselves during what is traditionally known as the Middle Palaeolithic (the Skhul burials were found in a Mousterian context, see MOUNT CARMEL); they then developed a blade technology during an ‘Initial Palaeolithic’, and only at a relatively late stage adopted a strongly Aurignacian (classic Upper Palaeolithic) tool typology. To some, this suggests that key features of the Upper Palaeolithic developed in the Near East.

Further complicating the division between the Upper and Middle Palaeolithic, the CHÂTELPERRONIAN, SZELETIAN and related industries, which many authorities now accept are some of the first fully fledged ‘Upper Palaeolithic’ technologies apparent in Europe, may have been produced by a NEANDERTHAL population – possibly after contact with modern humans. The debate has become caught up in a wider controversy over whether Neanderthal populations were part of the population that evolved into modern humans, or formed a separate line that simply died away.

Culture sequence. The Upper Palaeolithic in Europe is often divided into two according to climatic change. During the Early Upper Palaeolithic (40,000–20,000 BP) the climate deteriorated, with gathering speed, towards the period of maximum continental glaciation (20,000–18,000 BP). Human populations retreated south to areas such as southern France. As the glaciation receded during the second half of the Late Upper Palaeolithic (20,000–10,000 BP) humans were able to recolonize the continent.

This aside, the main divisions are based on tool typology (i.e. industries), although these have sometimes become associated with other changes, such as styles of art; in the past, tool typologies have often been treated implicitly in the literature as if they were cultural classifications. To the extent that the industries can be regarded as successive, they appear in the following order and are described in the following entries: the transitional or acculturated industries of the CHÂTELPERRONIAN (Lower Périgordian) of France, ULUZZIAN of Italy and SZELETIAN of central Europe; the first fully Upper Palaeolithic assemblages of the AURIGNACIAN; the GRAVETTIAN (Upper Périgordian); the

SOLUTREAN; and the MAGDALENIAN. The

AZILIAN industries are usually regarded as transitional between the Upper Palaeolithic and the

MESOLITHIC proper.

P. Ucko and A. Rosenfeld: Palaeolithic cave art (London, 1967); H. Laville et al.: Rockshelters of the Périgord (New York, 1980); O. Soffer: The Upper Palaeolithic of the

Central Russian Plain (New York, 1985); D. Collins: Palaeolithic Europe (Tiverton, 1986); C. Gamble: The Palaeolithic settlement of Europe (Cambridge, 1986); P. Bahn and J. Vertut: Images of the Ice Age (London, 1988); J.F. Hoffecker and C.A. Wolf, eds: The Early Upper Palaeolithic, BAR IS 437 (Oxford, 1988); N. Barton et al., eds: The Late Glacial in North-West Europe: Human adaptation and environmental change at the end of the Pleistocene

(London, 1992); L.G. Strauss: Iberia before the Iberians: the Stone Age prehistory of Cantabrian Spain

(Albuquerque, 1992); C. Gamble: Timewalkers: The prehistory of global colonisation (Stroud, 1993); H. Knecht et al., eds: Before Lascaux: the complex record of the early Upper Palaeolithic (Boca Raton, 1993); C. Stringer and C. Gamble: In search of the Neanderthals (London, 1993); M.H. Nitecki and C.V. Nitecki: Origins of anatomically modern humans (New York, 1994); S. Mithen: The prehistory of the mind: a search for the origins of art, religion and science (London, 1996).

RJA

Upper Volga Early Neolithic tradition represented at a number of sites in the Upper Volga area of central Russia (Yaroslavl, Ivanovo, Tver districts), which was identified and studied by D.A. Krainov and N.A. Khotinsky in the 1970s. In some areas it forms the predecessor to the PIT-AND-COMB culture of the Middle Neolithic. The main feature of the ‘Upper Volga’ complex is the ceramic assemblage: wide-mouthed vessels with straight walls, and with pointed or rounded bases. The ornamentation consists of strokes, stamp impressions and incised lines which form horizontal and diagonal lines, as well as simple geometric motifs (triangles, rhombi and intersecting lines). The stone inventory is of MESOLITHIC character: burins, endscrapers, arrowheads of post-Swiderian type, and knives made from blades. Furthermore, all the faunal remains at Upper Volga sites belong to wild animals.

Many of the sites have been discovered within peat bogs. The peat-bog of Ivanovskoye contained the remains of eight camp-sites; one of the stratified sites, Ivanovskoye 3, was located on an island in the western part of a huge peat-bog. The ‘Upper Volga’ stratum at the latter site overlay Mesolithic deposits and was itself overlain by deposits containing a late Lyalovo assemblage (see PIT-AND-COMB). An impressive series of radiocarbon dates suggests that the Upper Volga stratum was deposited between 5500 and 4800 BC (calendar years). Four sites with Upper Volga material of c.5200 BC were discovered within the peat-bog of Yazykovo, below the stratum bearing pit-and-comb pottery.

D.A. Krainov and N.A. Khotinsky: ‘Verhnevolzˇskaja arheologicˇeskaja kul’tura’ [The Upper Volga archaeologi-

cal culture], Sovetskaja arheologija 3 (1977), 42–68; ––––

et al.: ‘Stratigrafija i absoljutnaua hronologija stojanki Ivanovskoe III’ [Stratigraphy and absolute chronology of the Ivanovkoye 3 site], Sovetskaja arheologija 3 (1990), 25–31.

PD

Ur (Tell el-Muqayyar) Mesopotamian city covering an area of some 55 ha in southern Iraq, which was first occupied in the Ubaid period (c.5000–3800 BC) but flourished during the Early Dynastic and Ur III periods (c.2900–2350 and 2150–2000 BC respectively). Ur was a commercial port reliant on maritime trade with the Gulf countries and the Indus region (although there has been some considerable debate on this point, see Oppenheim 1954; Oates et al. 1977; Roaf and Galbraith 1994). It was therefore probably the change in the course of the Euphrates that eventually precipitated its abandonment in the 4th century BC. First identified by Pietro della Valle in 1625, the site was excavated from 1922 to 1934 by Leonard Woolley, who initially claimed to have discovered traces of the original Biblical Flood in one sounding at the site, but this stratum is now generally considered to have been a purely local phenomenon.

The Early Dynastic elite were buried along with rich burial equipment (including gold and silver jewellery, chariots and numerous bodies of retainers) in 17 of the 1,850 burials in the so-called ‘Royal Cemetery’ (see below). As the dynastic seat of power during the Ur III period the city was essentially rebuilt, including the construction of a ZIGGURAT (probably over the remains of an earlier temple), temples of the moon-god Nanna and his consort Ningal, a new palace, and the ‘mortuary chapels’ of Shulgi and his successor Bur-Sin. The design of these mortuary chapels apparently represents a return to the early Sumerian house-plan temples such as the Square Temple at KHAFAJEH. Although the city’s political and economic importance diminished in the 1st and 2nd millennia BC, the temples were still being restored and embellished as late as the Neo-Babylonian period (c.625–539 BC).

The ‘Royal Cemetery’, dug into refuse tips at the edge of the citadel, appears to represent a good cross-section of the population, unlike most other cemeteries of the period (Woolley 1934). Debate has centred primarily on the identification and social ranking of the owners of the richest graves (only three of whom have been named: Queen Puabi, Akalamdug and Meskalamdug) and the question of

URANIUM SERIES DATING 597

why their retainers were sacrificed en masse (Moorey 1977; Pollock 1991).

C.L. Woolley: Ur excavations: II The Royal Cemetery, 2 vols (London, 1934); A.L. Oppenheim: ‘The seafaring merchants of Ur’, JAOS 74 (1954), 6–17; J. Oates: ‘Ur and Eridu: the prehistory’, Iraq 22 (1960), 32–50; ––––, T.E. David, D. Kamilli and H. Mckerrell: ‘Seafaring merchants of Ur?’, Antiquity 51 (1977), 221–34; P.R.S. Moorey: ‘What do we know about the people buried in the Royal Cemetery?’, Expedition 20 (1977), 24–40; C.L. Woolley and P.R.S. Moorey: Ur of the Chaldees: the final account, 3rd edn (London, 1982); S. Pollock: ‘Of priestesses, princes and poor relations: the dead in the Royal Cemetery of Ur’, CAJ 1 (1991), 171–89; M. Roaf and J. Galbraith: ‘Pottery and p-values: “Seafaring merchants of Ur” re-examined’, Antiquity 68 (1994), 770–82.

IS

uranium series dating (U-series) Family of scientific dating techniques based on the decay chains of uranium i.e. 238U and 235U, the latter having an abundance of 0.72% of total natural uranium. These isotopes each decay radioactively to a daughter isotope which in turn decays, and via a series of such decays, each chain ends with a stable lead isotope. Disruption to the chains, resulting from differences in the geochemistry of the different elements involved, and useful differences in half-lives of daughter products within each series, form the basis of the U-series methods. The isotopes of relevance in the 238U chain are 234U and its daughter 230Th, with half-lives of 248 thousand years and 75.2 thousand years respectively. In the 235U chain the only long-lived isotope in the chain is 231Pa (half-life 34.3 thousand years). The key geochemical difference between uranium and thorium (Th) is that uranium forms water-soluble compounds whereas thorium does not; geochemically, protactinium (Pa) behaves like thorium and is insoluble.

In archaeology, the two U-series methods used are 230Th/230U and 231Pa/235U, the latter largely to demonstrate concordance of dates for the time period over which the two methods overlap. The principles of the two methods are the same and are therefore outlined for 230Th/234U. Their most reliable application is to the dating of calcitic speleothems, in particular stalagtites and flowstones. Uranium from the ground water precipitates with the calcite, but 230Th is missing because of its insolubility. By the decay of 234U, which has a considerably longer half-life than 230Th, 230Th will grow back at a rate determined by its 75.2 thousand year HALF-LIFE. The form of the growth with time is a saturating exponential: initially

598 URANIUM SERIES DATING

linear, then sublinear and ultimately reaching an equilibrium level which determines the maximum age limit of the technique (approximately 350,000 years for 230Th/234U; 150,000 years for 231Pa/235U). The form of the growth of 230Th/234U also leads to asymmetric error terms on the age. The minimum age limit is typically 5000 years, depending on the uranium concentration (but higher for 231Pa/235U because of the low natural abundance of 235U). If the 234U and 238U are not in equilibrium on crystallization, a correction must be made.

Key assumptions in uranium series dating are (1) that there is zero concentration of 230Th on crystal formation and (2) that the system is closed (i.e. no uranium or thorium migrates out of or into the calcite after formation). In practice, detrital material containing thorium can be incorporated in the calcite. This can be detected by the presence of 232Th (the half-life of which is 1.39 × 1010 years, i.e. very long relative to the time scales of interest). If the 230Th/232Th ratio is less than 20, the contamination can be considered to have a negligible effect on the age. The closed system assumption for calcite is generally good, but for other archaeological materials this is less often the case.

Application of U-series dating to bone and teeth is based on the uptake of uranium from ground water after death (living bone, for example, typically contains 0.1 ppm of uranium whereas fossil bone can contain up to 1000 ppm). As for calcite dating, the assumption is that no 230Th is present initially. The problem lies in whether the uranium remains fixed and when it was taken up: immediately after death (known as ‘early uptake’), gradually with time (‘linear uptake’), or indeed more variably. Results on bone have been mixed, but there is evidence to suggest that tooth enamel may act as a closed system and provide more reliable dates; the model for initial uptake of the uranium is, however, still problematic.

Measurement of isotope ratios has until recently been achieved mainly by alpha spectrometry: counting the alpha particles of a particular energy associated with the decay of a specific isotope. Mass spectrometry, on the other hand, directly measures the number of atoms of a given isotope present, or a proportion of them. This is a more efficient technique, if considerably more costly, but it also allows much smaller samples to be dated (typically milligrams rather than grams). In the case of 230Th/234U dating it also widens the date range of the method, taking it as low as 50 years and up to about 500,000

years. See also LEAD-210 DATING.

H.P. Schwarcz: ‘Absolute age determination of archaeological sites by uranium series dating of travertines’, Archaeometry 22 (1980), 3–24; P.L. Smart: ‘Uranium

series dating’, Quaternary dating methods – a user’s guide, ed. P.L. Smart and P.D. Fraces (Cambridge, 1991), 45–83.

SB

Urartu (Biblical Ararat) Anatolian kingdom centred on Lake Van and covering a large area at the junction of eastern Turkey, Iran, Armenia and Azerbaijan. The Urartians dominated this region in the 9th–7th centuries BC while the ASSYRIAN empire (c.883–612 BC) was flourishing to the south. The first historical references to the HURRIAN- speaking tribes of Urartu appear in the Assyrian annals of the mid-13th century BC, but it is not until the early 9th century BC that they become clearly recognizable as a political and archaeological entity. Many Urartian sites include rock-inscriptions written in the ‘Vannic’ script (a form of cuneiform used to record the Urartian language), which was first studied by F.E. Schultz in 1827 but was not deciphered until the turn of the century.

Seven of the principal Urartian fortress-towns have been excavated, including the main capital Tushpa (near modern Van) and the sites of Altintepe, Erebuni (Yerevan), Kefkalesi, Teishebaina (Karmir Blur), Rusaurutur (Bastam) and Rusahinili (Toprakkale). The Toprakkale citadel, which was excavated by Hormuzd Rassam in 1877 and 1879, was the first Urartian site to be scientifically investigated, but it was the exploration of the rich site of Erebuni by Soviet archaeologists in 1938 that initiated the most productive phase in Urartian archaeology.

Altintepe, located 20 km from Erzincan, includes the best-preserved Urartian temple, dedicated to the god Haldi, comprising a cella, or inner shrine (originally painted and still containing a number of ritual implements), set in a large courtyard surrounded by wooden colonnades. In the southeastern section of the site a set of subterranean royal tombs have been excavated, each containing one or two bodies placed in wooden or stone sarcophagi and accompanied by typical Urartian gold, silver and bronze funerary equipment.

Apart from their distinctive ceramics, the archaeological remains of the Urartians (including the celebrated metalwork) have been traditionally interpreted as provincial versions of Assyrian material culture (Frankfort 1970: 194, n. 55). Seton Lloyd, however, argues that the ambitious stonebuilt, turreted fortresses and tower-like bastioned temples suggests an Urartian society in radical contrast to the Mesopotamian civilizations, with their mud-brick flat-roofed houses and platform temples (Lloyd 1989: 99–100).

C.A. Burney: ‘Urartian fortresses and towns in the Van region’, AS 7 (1957), 37–53; T. Özgüç: Altin Tepe, architectural monuments and wall paintings, 2 vols (Ankara, 1966–9); B. Piotrovski: The ancient civilization of Urartu

(London, 1969); H. Frankfort: The art and architecture of the ancient Orient, 4th edn (Harmondsworth, 1970), 194–6; T.B. Forbes: Urartian architecture (Oxford, 1983); S. Lloyd: Ancient Turkey: a traveller’s history of Anatolia

(London, 1989), 94–109; R. Merhav, ed.: Urartu: a metalworking centre in the 1st millennium BCE (Jerusalem, 1991).

IS

Urewe see EARLY IRON AGE

urnfield culture (urnfield complex) Late Bronze Age to early Iron Age complex of cemetery sites, characterized by cremation burials in urns of various kinds. The complex is focused in central Europe, notably the Lusation or Lausitz culture of East Germany and Poland, but extends westwards into France and eastwards into the Ukraine, and south to Italy and even Spain. Beginning towards the end of the 14th century BC, the rite continued into the Hallstatt A/B periods in the 8th century BC. The urnfields are flat cemeteries – in contrast to the earlier inhumation burials, often under barrows, that are so characteristic of the Middle Bronze Age in Central Europe (see TUMULUS COMPLEX). They vary from a few tens of urns to substantial clusters of hundreds or even thousands of burials (e.g. the Kiertrz cemetery of southwest Poland), and the sheer numbers are sometimes taken to indicate a growth in population in central Europe in the later Bronze Age. Grave-goods accompanying the urns include bronze ornaments, tools and weapons; just as the cremation rite itself suggests a broadly homogeneous Late Bronze Age culture in the region, so the items deposited are broadly similar in the technological skills and main typologies. The number of items varies considerably from grave to grave in most cemeteries (and from region to region); this is normally taken to indicate social status differences, but at the same time it is difficult to identify clear social hierarchies. BISKUPIN is one of the most carefully excavated settlement sites closely associated with the urnfield complex. During the urnfield period, hillforts began to be constructed, another feature that continues into the Iron Age.

RJA

Uronarti see SEMNA

URUK 599

Uruk (Warka) Tell-site of the Biblical city of Erech, located midway between Baghdad and Basra in southern Iraq, which is the type-site of the Uruk period (c.4000–3200 BC). The city of Uruk, known to the Sumerians as Unu, was occupied from early in the UBAID period (c.5000–3800 BC), when it was perhaps initially two separate settlements (Kullaba and Eanna), but it was in the mid-4th millennium BC that it became the most important settlement in SUMER and probably the first true city in the world. The site, with virtually continuous stratigraphy stretching from the 5th millennium BC to the 3rd century AD, therefore provides crucial evidence for the process of early state formation. There was also a settlement of the SASANIAN period (AD 224–651) located immediately outside the city walls. Surveys have shown that urbanization in Mesopotamia accelerated at the beginning of the Uruk period (see Adams and Nissen 1972). At its height the city was more than 400 hectares in area, and one of the city’s earliest rulers appears to have been the historical counterpart of Gilgamesh – hero of the Sumerian epic – thus providing an unexpectedly strong link between the archaeology and mythology of early Mesopotamia.

The earliest excavations at Uruk were undertaken by William Kennet Loftus in 1850–2, revealing a Parthian cemetery of slipper-coffins, part of a complex that later proved to be a Parthian temple, as well as a section of Uruk-period wall decorated with STIFTMOSAIK. In the heart of the city were Kullaba and Eanna, the cult centres of the gods Anu and Inanna (later Ishtar), where most of the German excavations have taken place from 1924 until the present day (Heinrich 1941; Lenzen 1964; Boehmer 1991). The precinct of Eanna included the so-called Mosaic and Limestone temples, dating to the Uruk period, as well as the White Temple, dating to the late Uruk or early Jemdet Nasr period (c.3200 BC) and perhaps showing an early stage in the development of the ZIGGURAT. It was about a thousand years later that one of the first known ziggurats was constructed by Ur-Nammu in the precinct of Kullaba. The city appears to have retained some importance even in the Seleucid and Parthian periods (c.305 BC – AD 244), when many of the older temples were restored and a new sanctuary was constructed for Gareus, a Parthian deity.

During the Uruk period – ‘arguably the most innovative and important of any in the history of Mesopotamia’ (Crawford 1991: 13) – most of the salient features of Sumerian civilization emerged. There were a large number of technological innovations, including the introduction of the potter’s wheel and the initial stages in the development of

600 URUK

the CUNEIFORM script; in addition, the stamp-seal was superseded by the CYLINDER SEAL (a small stone cylinder bearing engraved designs), which is one of the most diagnostic features of the Uruk and JEMDET NASR periods. Towards the end of the period, the influence of the Uruk civilization spread northwards and eastwards, strongly affecting the material culture of sites on the Mesopotamian fringes, such as HABUBA KEBIRA in Syria and SUSA in Iran.

W.K. Loftus: Travels and researches in Chaldaea and Susiana (London 1857); Preliminary reports of German excavations published as Uruk Vorläufiger Berichte since 1928; E. Heinrich: Topographie von Uruk (Leipzig, 1941); H.J. Lenzen: ‘New discoveries in Warka, S. Iraq’, Archaeology, 17 (1964), 122–31; R.McC. Adams and H.J. Nissen: The Uruk countryside (Chicago, 1972); R.M. Boehmer: ‘Uruk 1980–1990: a progress report’, Antiquity 65 (1991), 465–78; H. Crawford: Sumer and the Sumerians (Cambridge, 1991), 13–14, 57–62 [discussion of the material culture of the Uruk period]; G. Roux: Ancient Iraq, 3rd edn (Harmondsworth, 1992), 68–76.

IS

Urukug see SEALAND

Usatovo see TRIPOLYE

U-series see URANIUM SERIES DATING

use-wear traces (microwear traces) Term used to refer to the pattern of wear on the surfaces and edges of stone artefacts, the analysis of which was pioneered by the early 19th-century Swedish zoologist Sven Nilsson (1868). Nilsson studied the use-wear traces on artefacts in order to gain a better understanding of the functions of tools, thus enabling him to deduce a cultural-evolutionist sequence of prehistoric subsistence patterns. Little further study of use-wear traces was undertaken until the early 20th century, when a number of different researchers (e.g. Warren 1905) began to apply similar techniques of analysis to EOLITHS (naturally formed fragments of flint) in order to determine whether they were natural or artefactual in origin.

In the late 1950s, the Soviet archaeologist S.A. Semenov found that he was able to deduce the functions of many stone and bone tools by means of a combination of experimental use-wear studies and the examination of the polishes and striations on lithics through a binocular microscope. When his work was translated into English (Semenov 1964), a new generation of archaeologists (e.g. Tringham et

al. 1974) began to analyse the use-wear traces on stone tools. Some, such as Laurence Keeley (1980), improved the accuracy of microwear analyses by using an SEM (scanning electron microscope). Most use-wear studies have involved experimental work, since it would otherwise be difficult to know precisely which activities might produce particular types of wear on lithics. Thus Binneman and Deacon (1986), for instance, created replica stone adzes in order to prove that early woodworking was practised at the Later Stone Age site of BOOMPLAAS CAVE in South Africa.

S. Nilsson: The primitive inhabitants of Scandinavia, 3rd edn, trans. J. Lubbock (London, 1868); S.H. Warren: ‘On the origin of “eolithic” flints by natural causes’, JRAI 35 (1905), 337–64; S.A. Semenov: Prehistoric technology (London, 1964); R. Tringham et al.: ‘Experimentation in the formation of edge damage; a new approach to lithic analysis’, JFA 1 (1974), 171–96; B. Hayden: Lithic usewear analysis (New York, 1979); L.H. Keeley:

Experimental determination of stone tool uses: a microwear analysis (Chicago, 1980); J. Binneman and H.J. Deacon: ‘Experimental determination of use wear on stone adzes from Boomplaas Cave, South Africa’, JAS 13 (1986), 219–28.

IS

USSR see CENTRAL ASIA; CIS AND THE BALTIC

STATES

Usvyaty Group of sites dating from the Late Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Ages, situated in and around lakes on the upper stretches of the Western Dvina and Lovat rivers, in the Pskov and Smolensk districts, in northwestern Russia. The sites were discovered and excavated by A.M. Miklyayev from the 1960s into the 1990s.

The earliest sites are Epipalaeolithic (tanged points are present) and were discovered on the dunes that developed on terraces in the Late Glacial period (c.12,000–10,000 BP). Industry complexes of a Mesolithic character, with blades and axes, were found on the terraces at lower levels. A group of Neolithic sites was found near Rudnya. The earliest stratum at the site of Rudnya-Serteya contained blades and axe-like tools, and fragments of coarse conical vessels decorated with a combination of horizontal, vertical and diagonal rows of triangular impressions. The upper stratum of the same site (c.5100–4900 BC) corresponds to the NARVA tradition.

In about 3300–3100 BC, as lake levels rose during the Early Sub-Boreal, pile-dwellings were constructed in the coastal areas of the Usvyaty and Sennitsa lakes. A third village of pile-dwellings,

Naumovo, emerged around 2500 BC in the off-shore area of Lake Zhizhitsa. All three settlements belonged to the same cultural tradition: Usvyaty (c.3300–2500 BC). The faunal assemblages from these sites included elk, brown bear, wild bear and fur-bearing animals (such as the otter and squirrel), pike and perch. Judging from the age groups, elk was hunted throughout the year. The tradition of pile dwellings resumed after a break caused by a change in the size of the lakes. The later settlements belonged to the North Bielorussian tradition – the local variant of the CORDED WARE culture (c.2500–2100 BC). At this stage, domesticates (sheep, goat, pig, cattle) appear among the faunal remains, but represent less than 15% of the assemblages.

A.M. Miklyayev: ‘O svajnyh poselenijah III–II tys. do n.e. v Pskovskoi i Smolenski oblastjah’ [On the pile-dwellings of the 3rd–2nd millennia BC in the Pskov and Smolensk districts], Drevnie pamjatniki kul’tury na territorii SSSR

[The ancient cultural sites in the territory of USSR], ed. B.B. Piotrovsky (Leningrad, 1977); P.M. Dolukhanov et al.: ‘Rudnya-Serteya, a stratified dwelling-site in the Upper Duna basin (a multidisciplinary research)’,

Fennoscandia archaeologica 6 (1989), 23–7.

PD

Utatlán Late Postclassic capital of the Quiché Maya, in western highland Guatemala. Also known as Gumarcaaj, Utatlán was established in the early 15th century AD and destroyed by the Spaniards in 1523. The site is defensively located on a plateau surrounded by deep ravines. Architectural features include a dense arrangement of temples set around a plaza, colonnaded halls (possibly lineage palaces) and at least one ballcourt (see BALLGAME). Utatlán has been surveyed and excavated but the remains are now poorly preserved and recorded.

D.T. Wallace: ‘An intra-site locational analysis of Utatlán: the structure of an urban site’, Archaeology and ethnohistory of the central Quiché, ed. D.T. Wallace and R.M. Carmack (Albany, 1977), 20–54; R.M. Carmack: The Quiché Mayas of Utatlán (Norman, 1981); J.W. Fox: Maya Postclassic state formation (Cambridge, 1987), 158–75.

PRI

U Thong see DVARAVATI CULTURE

Utnur ASH-MOUND site of the 3rd millennium BC, in Raichur Doab, southern India, which was excavated by Raymond Allchin in 1957. Calibrated radiocarbon dates from the site indicate that it was in use between c.2700 and 2200 BC (Possehl and

UVINZA 601

Rissman 1992: I, 489; II, 466). The ashy matrix that makes up the Utnur ash mound is largely composed of carbonized cow dung. Large quantities of cattle bones were recovered in excavations, along with hand-made ceramics, chipped stone blades and cores, ground stone axes, handstones and grindstones.

F.R. Allchin: Neolithic cattle keepers of the Deccan

(Cambridge, 1963), 6–46, 143–52; G.L. Possehl and P.C. Rissman: ‘The chronology of prehistoric India: from earliest times to the Iron Age’, Chronologies in Old World archaeology, ed. R.W. Ehrich, 2 vols (Chicago, 1992), I, 465–90; II, 447–74.

CS

Utqiagvik Site at Barrow, Alaska, where, at some point between the 16th and 18th centuries AD, pack ice was driven up onto the shore overnight and overran a semi-subterranean log-house, crushing it and killing its occupants (whose cultural affinities are uncertain). During building construction in 1982, the house was uncovered and found to contain the well-preserved bodies of two women and three children. Some items were removed from accessible parts of the house soon after the disaster; but the house, its contents and the bodies of its inhabitants provide a fascinating picture with which to compare houses that have gone through more typical processes of abandonment and re-use.

E.S. Hall, Jr., and L. Fullerton, eds: The Utqiagvik excavations (Barrow, 1990).

RP

Uvinza Collection of several sites in western Tanzania in an area celebrated for its salt, obtained from a series of springs (or ‘salt-wells’) whose plentiful brine is boiled to produce exceptionally pure salt. Before the 20th century the brine was evaporated in earthenware pots over wood fires. Oral accounts and 19th century travellers’ reports describe Uvinza as a centre of seasonal industrial activity and a market for the caravan trade. In 1967 John Sutton’s excavations in the vicinity of selected brine-springs revealed layers documenting activity back to the EARLY IRON AGE (mid-1st millennium AD) below the plentiful 19th-century debris. The earliest pottery at the site has affinities with the well-known Urewe tradition of the Early Iron Age. Uvinza’s archaeological sequence is thus among the most valuable yet obtained through the East African Iron Age to modern times.

J.E.G. Sutton and A.D. Roberts: ‘Uvinza and its salt industry’, Azania 3 (1968), 45–86.

JS

vacuum airlift see GELIDONYA

Valdivia Village site on the central coast of Ecuador, dating to the Early Formative period (c.3000–2000 BC). The complexity of the Valdivia ceramics, despite being the earliest yet found in Ecuador, led the excavators to propose an origin in the JOMON culture of Japan, hypothesizing that fisherman on rafts brought the art of ceramics to Ecuador sometime in the later 4th millennium BC. This hypothesis has not been accepted, as it can be shown that Valdivia ceramics are not the oldest in South America nor was it possible, given available technology, wind, and current conditions for such a diffusion to have taken place.

E. Estrada and B.J. Meggers: ‘A complex of traits of probable transpacific origin on the Coast of Ecuador’, American Anthropologist 63/5 (1961), 913–39; G.F. McEwan and D.B. Dickson: ‘Valdivia, Jomon fisherman, and the nature of the North Pacific: some nautical problems with Meggers, Evans, and Estrada’s (1965) transoceanic contact hypothesis’, AA 43/3 (1978), 362–71; E. Salazar:

Entre mitos y fabulas: el Ecuador aborigen (Quito, 1995).

KB

Valley of the Kings (Biban el-Muluk) Egyptian royal necropolis of the New Kingdom, situated in the cliffs about 5 km to the west of modern Luxor, which actually comprises two separate valleys. There are 62 tombs altogether, the earliest probably being KV38, which has been identified as that of Thutmose I (1504–1492 BC) and the latest being KV18, which was built for Ramesses XI (1100–1070 BC), although it is doubtful whether he was ever buried there. Each of the tombs consisted of a long succession of rock-cut corridors and chambers, sloping downwards into the cliffs. Until the time of Horemheb (1323–1295 BC), the main corridor had a bent-axis and their decoration consisted primarily of scenes of the Amduat (one of the ‘books of the netherworld’), whereas the Ramessid tombs had relatively straight main corridors and were decorated with a scenes from the Book of Gates and other funerary texts. The most famous

tomb in the valley is that of Tutankhamun (1333–1323 BC; KV62), which was discovered almost intact by Howard Carter in 1922, thus providing some indication of the funerary equipment which must have been plundered over the centuries from the other tombs in the valley. The bodies of virtually all of the New Kingdom pharaohs were moved in the 21st–2nd Dynasties (1070–945 BC) and placed in two caches, one in the tomb of Amenhotep II (KV35) and the other in the family tomb of Pinudjem II at Deir el-Bahari (DB320), where they were discovered in 1871 and 1898 respectively.

J. Romer: Valley of the Kings (London, 1981); E. Hornung: Valley of the Kings (New York, 1990); C.N. Reeves: Valley of the Kings: the decline of a royal necropolis (London, 1990); ––––, ed.: After Tutankhamun (London, 1991);

–––– and R.H. Wilkinson: The complete Valley of the Kings

(London, 1996).

IS

Valley of the Queens (Biban el-Harim) Egyptian necropolis of the royal wives and sons of some of the pharaohs of the 19th–20th dynasties, situated on the west bank at Thebes, about a kilometre to the northwest of MEDINET HABU. Although most of the 18th-dynasty rulers’ wives were buried in the same tombs as their husbands in the VALLEY OF THE KINGS, many of the 19thand 20th-dynasty royal women and children were buried in the Valley of the Queens, which includes about 75 rock-cut tombs, the earliest inscribed tomb being that of Satra, the wife of Ramesses I (1307–1306 BC). The best-known tomb, however, is that of Nefertari, the principal wife of Ramesses II (1290–1224 BC), the painted decoration of which was restored at great expense in the 1980s (see McDonald 1996).

E. Schiaparelli: Esplorazione della ‘Valle delle Regine’

(Turin, 1923); G. Thuasing and H. Goedicke: Nofretari: eine Dokumentation der Wandgemälde ihres Grab (Graz, 1971); J.H. McDonald: House of eternity: the tomb of Nefertari (London, 1996).

IS

variable In statistical analysis of archaeological DATA, a variable is a characteristic shared by a set of objects, whether a measurement, a count or an assignment to a category. A variable takes a distinct value on each object; collectively these values are known as DATA. The term ‘attribute’ is sometimes used for variable and ‘attribute state’ for value. There is a hierarchy of different types of variables – ratio, interval, ordinal and nominal. The lowest type, nominal, are simply names or ‘labels’ which can be applied to objects, e.g. colour or type. If there is, in addition, a natural order to these categories, e.g. a developmental sequence of types, the variable is said to be ordinal. Interval variables differ in that meaning can be assigned to the differences between values as well as to the values themselves; a good example is date (in years BC/AD). Ratio variables possess the additional feature that ratios of two values also have a meaning, e.g. 10 is twice 5 in a way that AD 10 is not twice AD 5; good examples of ratio variables are length and weight. Variables can also be described as continuous (capable of taking any value within a range) or discrete (taking only certain values); continuous variables are either ratio or interval, but discrete ones can belong to any of the four types. The type of a variable determines the statistical techniques which can be applied to it.

J.E. Doran and F.R. Hodson: Mathematics and computers in archaeology (Edinburgh, 1975), 99–104; S. Shennan: Quantifying archaeology (Edinburgh, 1988), 10–13; M. Fletcher and G.R. Lock: Digging numbers (Oxford, 1991), 2–5.

CO

variance see STANDARD DEVIATION

Varna Cemetery near the Black Sea coast of Bulgaria, dated to approximately 4600–4200 BC, which has yielded a unique collection of early gold artefacts. When excavated between 1972 and 1976 the inhumations and CENOTAPH burials were found to contain GLUMELNIT¸ A pottery, stone and copper tools and over 2000 hammered gold objects (largely jewellery and simple animal silhouettes). Three cenotaph burials yielded clay masks variously adorned with gold diadems, discs, ‘mouth-plates’,

VARVES 603

and earrings, while other graves contained gold ‘sceptres’. The presence of the shells of DYLUS gaederopus indicates trade of at least an indirect kind with the Aegean region. Colin Renfrew has argued that the richness of certain graves at Varna indicates a chiefdom society, as opposed to the more egalitarian models usually proposed for early agricultural communities.

I. Ivanov: Sukrovishtata na Varnenskija Chalkoliten Nekropol [Treasures of the Varna necropolis; English translation, colour plates] (Sofia, 1978); ––––: ‘Les fouilles archéologiques de la nécropole chalcolithique à Varna (1972–75)’, Studia Praehistorica, 1–2 (1978), 13–26; C. Renfrew: ‘Varna and the social context of early metallurgy’, Antiquity 52 (1978), 199–203; I. Ivanov: ‘Le Chalcolithique en Bulgaria et dans la nécropole de Varna’, Ancient Bulgaria, ed. A. Poulter (Nottingham, 1983), 154–63.

RJA

varves Layers in lake sediments usually caused by the annual melt of glaciers. The sediment carried by the melt waters is deposited on the lake bottom, the coarser fractions settling first: the change in texture from the end of one year to the start of the next is therefore clearly visible in sections through dried lake beds. The thickness of each layer depends on the prevailing climatic conditions: warmer weather causes more melting and more sediment build-up. The resulting pattern of thick and thin layers allows the CROSS-DATING of sections, provided that they were formed under the same climatic conditions. Thus long sequences analogous to the master chronologies of DENDROCHRONOLOGY can be built up for a given region. Significant errors can arise if discontinuous sequences are not recognized or if mismatching occurs.

The best known varve chronology is that for Scandinavia, particularly Sweden. Because the glacial retreat was simple, and not complicated by re-incursions, it has been possible to extend this chronology back for a period of some 13,000 years; it has been linked by layer-counting to the present. The sequence is used to provide an absolute chronology for pollen sections. Its use as the absolute timescale for calibration in RADIOCARBON DATING is problematic, since there are many possible sources of the carbon within varves. Research on identification of tephra within varves could, however, provide an accurate timescale for

TEPHROCHRONOLOGY.

Non-glacial lake sediments may also show varves as a result of seasonal variations in the deposition of organic debris, combined with variation in sedimentation rate.

604 VARVES

D.J. Schove and R.W. Fairbridge: ‘Swedish chronology revisted’, Nature 304 (1983), 583; –––– and ––––: Icecores, varves and tree-rings (Rotterdam, 1984); I. Cato: ‘The definitive connection of the Swedish geochronological time scale with the present, and the new date of the zero year in Döviken, northern Sweden’, Boreas 14 (1985), 117–22; B. Strömberg: ‘Revision of the late glacial Swedish varve chronology, Boreas 14 (1985), 101–5.

SB

vase supports Distinctive decorated pottery objects found within CHASSÉEN assemblages of the French middle Neolithic, and regarded as one of the diagnostics of that culture (although they are not evenly distributed within the Chasséen region). The earliest examples seem to be from the Midi, and there are concentrations in Languedoc and Brittany. They are called ‘vase supports’ because they typically consist of a shallow dished surface on top of a hollow cylinder or squarish support – and it was originally thought that they were used to support the bases of jars. Their function continues to be debated, but many authorities now believe they were perfume burners (brûle-parfums). In the Paris basin, vase supports tend to be found at high camps such as the site of Chassey-le-Camp (the Chasséen type-site), while in Brittany they are associated with funerary and ceremonial sites. The stone circle site of Er Lannic in Brittany yielded one of the greatest concentrations (160 examples) decorated in a distinctive style. This association, and the fact that they are the only heavily decorated items in the plain Chasséen ceramic repertoire, supports a ritual, rather than domestic, function.

RJA

vector format see GIS

Ventana Cave Rockshelter in southern Arizona which was excavated in 1941–2 by Emil W. Haury and Julian Hayden. The deeply stratified deposits contained the terminal Pleistocene Ventana Complex, which has been radiocarbon-dated to 11,300 BP, as well as a thick Archaic-period midden, HOHOKAM occupation and historical Tohono O’odham (Papago) material. The cave stratigraphy at Ventana led Haury to argue that there was cultural continuity between the Archaic COCHISE culture and the Hohokam, a position he later changed, in 1976, in favour of a movement of the Hohokam people out of Mexico.

E.W. Haury: The stratigraphy and archaeology of Ventana

Cave (Tucson, 1950); ––––: The Hohokam (Tucson, 1976).

JJR

‘Venus’ figurines Name given to the female figurines produced during the Upper Palaeolithic, most being found in GRAVETTIAN and MAGDALENIAN contexts. In contrast to CAVE ART, they were produced across a wide area of the continent, including France, Germany, Italy, central Europe, Russia and Siberia. They vary from 3 to 23 cm in height and were made from ivory, schist, steatite and calcite. The corpulent, fat-bottomed and full-breasted examples are often taken as typical, and the figurine discovered at the site of Willendorf in Lower Austria in 1908, carved of limestone, with wide hips and large breasts, has become something of an archetype. The sculptor provided no facial details, but the head, limbs, plump stomach and pubic region are all carefully delineated and the figurine was originally coloured red. Dated very approximately to around 30,000 BC, the figurine is often assumed to embody female fertility. The baked clay examples from Dolní Veˇstonice in Slovakia are also full-bodied, but in fact Palaeolithic figurines include elegantly stylized versions (LESPUGUE in France) and thin, graceful figurines (Ostrava Petrˇkovice in Slovakia). The figurines are often quite schematic – in some, only the breasts and buttocks are discernible – although a minority present facial details and even indicate hairstyles (Brassempouy, France). Where there is any detail, the bodies all appear to be nude except in some Siberian examples, which seem to wear fur coats. See also GRIMALDI, and figure 27 (p. 341).

H. Delporte: L’image de la femme dans l’art préhistorique

(Paris, 1979); ––––: Brassempouy (1980); P. Rice: ‘Prehistoric Venuses: symbols of motherhood or womenhood?, JAR 37 (1981), 402–14; P. Bahn and J. Vertut: Images of the Ice Age (Leicester, 1988); M.D. Gvozdover: ‘The typology of female figurines of the Kostenki Palaeolithic culture’, Soviet Anthropology and Archaeology

27 (1989), 32–94; H. Delporte: ‘Gravettian female figurines: a regional survey’, Before Lascaux: The complex record of the early Upper Palaeolithic, ed. H. Knecht et al. (Boca Raton, 1993), 243–57; N. Hamilton et al.: ‘Can we interpret figurines?’, CAJ 6/2 (1996), 281–307.

RJA

verification Process of proving a theory or hypothesis by testing it against the empirical evidence (via observation or experiment) and presenting these instances as supporting evidence of the general truthfulness of the statement. Philosophers of science differ in the degree to which