Deutsches Archa¨ologisches Institut ! Eurasien-Abteilung Außenstelle Teheran
Sonderdruck aus:
Archa¨ologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan BAND 46 2014 *
DIETRICH REIMER VERLAG BERLIN *
Deutsches Archa¨ologisches Institut # Eurasien-Abteilung Außenstelle Teheran
Archa¨ologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan
Band 46 2014 *
DIETRICH REIMER VERLAG BERLIN *
IV + 342 Seiten mit 201 Abbildungen, 39 Tabellen und 5 Karten Herausgeber: Redaktion: Wissenschaftlicher Beirat:
Svend Hansen und Mayke Wagner Judith Thomalsky und Nikolaus Boroffka Abbas Alizadeh (Chicago) David Braund (Exeter) Henri-Paul Francfort (Nanterre) Ernie Haerinck (Ghent) Stefan R. Hauser (Konstanz) Lorenz Korn (Bamberg) ¨nchen) Stephan Kroll (Mu Michael Pfrommer (Trier) Susan Pollock (Berlin) Robert Rollinger (Innsbruck) Miroslav Salvini (Roma)
¨nnen die Mitglieder des Deutschen Archa¨ologischen Instituts und Studenten der Altertumswissenschaften ko ¨glich Versandkosten Archa¨ologischen Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan zum Vorzugspreis von 53,20 a zuzu abonnieren. Bestellungen sind an die Schriftleitung zu richten. Studenten werden um Vorlage einer ¨glich mitzuteilen. Studienbescheinigung gebeten. Die Beendigung des Studiums ist unverzu ¨rz fu ¨r den im folgenden Jahr erscheinenden Band. Bei der Abfassung der Redaktionsschluss ist der 31. Ma ¨r Vero ¨ffentlichungen der Außenstelle Teheran der Eurasien-Abteilung Manuskripte sind die ,,Richtlinien fu des Deutschen Archa¨ologischen Instituts‘‘ zu beachten, die unter http://www.dainst.org/index.php?id¼7490 ¨ltigen Form aufgerufen werden ko ¨nnen. in ihrer jeweils aktuell gu ¨lt sich vor, Manuskripte zu ku ¨rzen. Die Redaktion beha
! 2016 by Deutsches Archa¨ologisches Institut, Eurasien-Abteilung ISSN 1434-2758 Redaktion: Deutsches Archa¨ologisches Institut, Eurasien-Abteilung, Im Dol 2–6, D-14195 Berlin ¨dter Straße 1–4, D-99947 Bad Langensalza Satz, Druck und Bindung: Beltz Bad Langensalza GmbH, Neusta Kommissionsvertrieb: Dietrich Reimer Verlag GmbH, Berliner Straße 53, D-10713 Berlin
III
Inhalt
Inhalt Aufsa¨tze H a m e d V a h d a t i N a s a b und G e o f f r e y A . C l a r k, The Upper Paleolithic of the Iranian Central Desert: the Delazian Site – a Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
O m r a n G h a r a s i a n, L e i l a P a p o l i s und H a m i d e F a k h r - e G h a e m i, Qaleh Khan a Site in Northern Khorassan and the Neolithic of North Eastern Iranian Plateau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
M o h a m m a d E s m a e i l E s m a e i l i J e l o d a r und S a e e d Z o l g h a d, Central Zagros, Highland Fars, and Lowland, Susiana Sphere of Interaction in the 5th Millennium BC.: Evidence from salvage excavation at Haji Jalil 2, Kuhrang, Iran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51
M a s s i m o V i d a l e, D e b o r a V e n d e m i und E d o a r d o L o l i v a, Uncertainty and errors in the Painted Buff Ware of Shahr-e Sukhte (Sistan, Iran) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71
¨gels 4 von Dz˘arkutan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K a i K a n i u t h, Die Bestattungen des Hu
95
M u t i n - R a z z a k o v, Cultural contacts across the Hindu Kush in the early Bronze Age. Additional insights from Sarazm – Soundings 11–11A (Tajikistan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
123
R u b e n B a d a l y a n, A d a m T . S m i t h, I a n L i n d s a y, A r m i n e H a r u t y u n y a n, A l a n G r e e n e, M a u r e e n M a r s h a l l, B e l i n d a M o n a h a n und R o m a n H o v s e p y a n, mit Beitra¨gen von Khachatur Meliksetian, Ernst Pernicka und Samuel Haroutunian, A Preliminary Report on the 2008, 2010, and 2011 Investigations of Project ArAGATS on the Tsaghkahovit Plain, Republic of Armenia .
149
A l i r e z a A s k a r i C h a v e r d i, P i e r f r a n c e s c o C a l l i e r i und E m a d M a t i n, Tol-e Ajori: a Monumental Gate of the Early Achaemenian period in the Persepolis Area. The 2014 excavation season of the Iranian-Italian project ‘‘From Palace to Town’’, with an appendix by Gian Pietro Basello, A fragment of another inscribed glazed brick from Tol-e Ajori. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
223
M i c h a e l F e d o r o v, Money circulation in Central Asia under T¯ımu¯r and T¯ımu¯rids . . . . . . . . .
255
A l e x a n d r e T o u r o v e t z, The search for a better organisation of the space and its use: a possible cause to explain the outbreak of the Achaemenian Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
281
M e r n o u s h S o r o u s h, The Misr of ‘Askar Mokram: Preliminary Report and Framework for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . .˙ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
299
Y a g h e s h K a z e m i, Solar Considerations in Planning of Three Circular Cities in Ancient Persia . . .
321
Buchbesprechungen: W. Roberts/C. P. Thornton (eds.), Archaeometallurgy in global perspective. Methods and syntheses (Springer, Heidelberg, New York 2014) (B. Helwing) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
331
Nachruf Yuriy Fedorovich Buryakov. 1934–2015 (A. E. Berdimurodov) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
335
Vadim Nikolaevich Yagodin. 1932–2015 (A. D. Iskanderova) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
339
IV
Inhalt
Table of content Articles H a m e d V a h d a t i N a s a b and G e o f f r e y A . C l a r k, The Upper Paleolithic of the Iranian Central Desert: the Delazian Site – a Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
O m r a n G h a r a s i a n, L e i l a P a p o l i s and H a m i d e F a k h r - e G h a e m i, Qaleh Khan a Site in Northern Khorassan and the Neolithic of North Eastern Iranian Plateau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
M o h a m m a d E s m a e i l E s m a e i l i J e l o d a r and S a e e d Z o l g h a d, Central Zagros, Highland Fars, and Lowland, Susiana Sphere of Interaction in the 5th Millennium BC.: Evidence from salvage excavation at Haji Jalil 2, Kuhrang, Iran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51
M a s s i m o V i d a l e, D e b o r a V e n d e m i and E d o a r d o L o l i v a, Uncertainty and errors in the Painted Buff Ware of Shahr-e Sukhte (Sistan, Iran) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71
¨gels 4 von Dz˘arkutan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K a i K a n i u t h, Die Bestattungen des Hu
95
M u t i n - R a z z a k o v, Cultural contacts across the Hindu Kush in the early Bronze Age. Additional insights from Sarazm – Soundings 11–11A (Tajikistan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
123
R u b e n B a d a l y a n, A d a m T . S m i t h, I a n L i n d s a y, A r m i n e H a r u t y u n y a n, A l a n G r e e n e, M a u r e e n M a r s h a l l, B e l i n d a M o n a h a n und R o m a n H o v s e p y a n, with contributions by Khachatur Meliksetian, Ernst Pernicka and Samuel Haroutunian, A Preliminary Report on the 2008, 2010, and 2011 Investigations of Project ArAGATS on the Tsaghkahovit Plain, Republic of Armenia .
149
A l i r e z a A s k a r i C h a v e r d i, P i e r f r a n c e s c o C a l l i e r i and E m a d M a t i n, Tol-e Ajori: a Monumental Gate of the Early Achaemenian period in the Persepolis Area. The 2014 excavation season of the Iranian-Italian project ‘‘From Palace to Town’’, with an appendix by Gian Pietro Basello, A fragment of another inscribed glazed brick from Tol-e Ajori. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
223
M i c h a e l F e d o r o v, Money circulation in Central Asia under T¯ımu¯r and T¯ımu¯rids . . . . . . . . .
255
A l e x a n d r e T o u r o v e t z, The search for a better organisation of the space and its use: a possible cause to explain the outbreak of the Achaemenian Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
281
M e r n o u s h S o r o u s h, The Misr of ‘Askar Mokram: Preliminary Report and Framework for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . .˙ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
299
Y a g h e s h K a z e m i, Solar Considerations in Planning of Three Circular Cities in Ancient Persia. . .
321
Book reviews W. Roberts/C. P. Thornton (eds.), Archaeometallurgy in global perspective. Methods and syntheses (Springer, Heidelberg, New York 2014) (B. Helwing) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
331
Orbituary Yuriy Fedorovich Buryakov. 1934–2015 (A. E. Berdimurodov) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
335
Vadim Nikolaevich Yagodin. 1932–2015 (A. D. Iskanderova) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
339
Central Zagros, Highland Fars and Lowland Susiana: a sphere of interaction in the 5th millennium BCE.1 By Mohammad Esmaeil Esmaeili Jelodar and Saeed Zolghadr ¨rter: Schlagwo Keywords:
Chalkolithikum, Bakt¯ıya¯r¯ı Berge, kulturelle Interaktion ¯¯ r¯ı Mountains, Cultural Interaction Chalcolithic, Bakt¯ıya ¯
Introduction
of the Iranian Center for Archaeological Research (ICAR) started excavations at five sites in 2008 and submitted his report to the ICAR and the Iranian Ministry of Power.3 Prior to the excavations, the sites already recorded by Roustaei were revisited by the excavation team, who added two more archaeological sites to his register. These new sites were designated following the previous system as KD.042 and KD.043. After conclusion of the revisiting program on schedule, five sites were singled out for the first phase of excavations. The present paper is an interim report on the results of the excavation carried out in the Site KD.043, named Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2 after the nearby modern village. A total of four sites were identified in this village including a cemetery, a millhouse and two nomadic camp sites namely Kahda¯n and Site KD.043, the latter being the subject of the present paper (Tab. 1; Fig. 1).
Nowadays, the construction of dams and related structures to provide and distribute water for domestic, irrigation, industrial and power generation purposes is one of the basic needs of human societies that seems to be as old as civilization. Given the extent of dam construction projects in Iran on the one hand and the subsequent inundation of large areas under these artificial lakes on the other, the Iranian Ministry of Power and the Iranian Organization of Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism (ICHHTO) signed an agreement regarding the implementation of salvage archaeological investigations including surface survey and excavation in the areas covered by future reservoirs and related structures prior to their inauguration. One of the major projects of the Ministry of Power in C˘a¯ha¯rmaha¯l va Bakt¯ıya¯r¯ı Province is the ¯ Ku¯hrang Dam and its third tunnel in the B¯ırga¯n valley. Once inaugurated, it will submerge a vast part of the region, including a number of major modern villages. Its reservoir is supposed to be ca. 18 km long and it will extend in its initial 1.5 km in NorthSouth direction and thence from Northwest to Southeast. Its width will vary between 90 and 1500 meters. Given the submersion of considerable portions of this region, K. Roustaei led a reconnaissance and survey program in the dam’s reservoir in 2007. He identified a total of 41 archaeological sites and recorded them in a GPS device, using a designation comprised of a site prefix ‘‘KD’’ (abbreviation for Ku¯hrang Dam), followed by an Arabic sequential number. The identified sites fall in a range from Qajar/Pahlavid cemeteries to the Middle Paleolithic (Tab. 1).2 The submersion of a number of sites necessitated salvage excavations. Accordingly, M. Esmaeili
As the most mountainous county of the C˘a¯ha¯rmaha¯l va Bakt¯ıya¯r¯ı province, Ku¯hrang lies at the northwes¯ of the province. The Zard Kuh Mountains tern end separate the two districts of the province, namely Central and Ba¯za¯ft Districts. Ku¯hrang County is bounded by Isfahan province to the north, Luristan province to the northwest, Khuzestan province to the west, the Central District of Arda¯l to the south and Shahrekord and Fa¯rsa¯n counties to the east. The archaeological site of Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2 (Site KD.043) is located in the northwest of C˘a¯ha¯rmaha¯l va Bakt¯ıya¯r¯ı province, in the B¯ırga¯n valley, Ku¯hrang ¯ some 350 m the south of the Ha¯j¯ı Jal¯ıl vilCounty, lage. Situated some 400 m to the north of the B¯ırga¯n River, it sits on a terrace that overlooks the B¯ır-
1 The authors thank Dr. A. Alizadeh who suggested this title. 2
3
See also Roustaei 1386(2007), 195–196.
Ecology
Esmaeili Jelodar 1388(2009).
52
Mohammad Esmaeil Esmaeili Jelodar and Saeed Zolghadr
No.
Site Type
Date
KD.01
–
A single flake
Middle Paleolithic ?
KD.02
Dineh Riz
Cemetery
Qajar-Pahlavid
KD.03
Dezka¯ba¯d
Cemetery
Qajar-Pahlavid
KD.04
Molka¯ba¯d
Sherd scatter (nomadic)
?
KD.05
Chama¯ba¯d 1
Cemetery
Qajar-Pahlavid
KD.06
Rahim Mill
Millhouse
Qajar-Pahlavid
KD.07
–
Cemetery
?
KD.08
’Adjam Mill
Millhouse
Qajar-Pahlavid
KD.09
Rak Mill
Millhouse
Qajar-Pahlavid
KD.010
Khwajeh Asiyab
Millhouse
Qajar-Pahlavid
KD.011
Chama¯ba¯d 2
Cemetery
Qajar-Pahlavid
KD.012
Chama¯ba¯d 3
Cemetery
Qajar-Pahlavid
KD.013
Chama¯ba¯d 1
Sherd scatter (nomadic)
Historical
KD.014
Chama¯ba¯d 2
Sherd scatter (nomadic)
Historical (Parthian?)
KD.015
Chama¯ba¯d 3
Sherd scatter (nomadic)
Historical?
KD.016
Chama¯ba¯d 4
Individual gravestone
Qajar?
KD.017
Sargar
Sherd scatter (nomadic)
Historical
KD.018
Dehgah
Cemetery
Qajar
KD.019
Dehgah
Sherd scatter (nomadic)
Seleucid, historical
KD.020
Sherd scatter (nomadic)
Elamite, Islamic
KD.022
Ka¯rka¯neh 1 ¯ Ka¯rka¯neh 2 ¯ Kahdan
KD.023
KD.021
Cemetery?
Prehistoric and historical
Sherd scatter (nomadic)
Historical?
Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl Cemetery
Cemetery
Qajar
KD.024
Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl Mill
Millhouse
Qajar?
KD.025
Tepe Shah Abdul-Azim
Sherd scatter (nomadic)/later cemetery
Historical, Qajar-Pahlavid
KD.026
Harbakul
Cemetery
Qajar Elamite, Islamic
KD.027
Tappe Bid Amin
Sherd scatter (nomadic)
KD.028
Eylagh
?
Sasanian, Islamic
KD.029
Shahriyari Village and cemetery
Later cemetery and Sherd scatter (nomadic)
Qajar and earlier?
KD.030
Hill-top site, Sherd scatter (nomadic)
Elamite (3rd and 2nd mill. BCE)
Cemetery
Elamite (2nd mill. BCE), Iron Age
KD.032
C˘ogˇa¯ Kargus˘i ¯ Tappe Guresta¯n C˘ogˇa¯ Kargus˘i ¯ Shahriyari 1
Cemetery?
3rd mill. BCE
KD.033
Shahriyari 2
Sherd scatter (nomadic)
Parthian,Achaemenian, Iron III
KD.034
Shahriyari 3
Sherd scatter (nomadic)
Historical, Islamic?
KD.035
Gilas 1
Sherd scatter (nomadic)
Historical, prehistoric
KD.036
Gilas 2
Sherd scatter (nomadic)
Epipaleolithic or later
KD.037
Gilas 3
Lithic and sherd scatter (nomadic)
Prehistoric? Islamic
KD.038
Moleh Mamadali
Sherd scatter (nomadic)
Islamic?
KD.039
Qal’a Dezak
Fort
Islamic
KD.040
Bard Guri
Stone hypogeum
?
KD.041
Chendar
Sherd scatter (nomadic), Qajar cemetery
Historical, Qajar
KD.042
Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 1
Lithic and sherd scatter (nomadic)
KD.043
Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2
Lithic and sherd scatter (nomadic)
KD.031
Tab. 1 Ku¯hrang Dam Reservoir, list of sites recorded in the area of the dam (after Roustaei 1386(2007), 195–196)
Site Name
Prehistoric (LS1 and Ba¯ku¯n A)
53
Central Zagros, Highland Fars and Lowland Susiana
Fig. 1 Site Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2 (KD.043), looking north
ga¯n River. The site measures 100 ' 150 m and lies at a high altitude of 2242 m a.s.l. The B¯ırga¯n valley occupies a total area of ca. 98.73 km2. Topographically, it is a high region belonging to the Zagros Thrust Zone. The region is bounded by Das˘tak to the north, Zard Kuh Mountain to the west, Ku¯h-e Salda¯ra¯n to the east and Qeysari Mountain to the west. On the 1 : 50000 map, it is located at latitude 32& 150 32& 200 north, longitude 50& 120 50& 200 east. Kuhrang is among the highest parts of the Iranian plateau. The lowermost point of the Ku¯hrang County lies in Ba¯za¯ft District at a height of ca. 1500 m a.s.l. The major portion of the county is situated at an attitude above 2000 m, and the Zard Kuh with its several over 4000 m high peaks marks its highest point. The elevated location has listed the county among the Iranian regions with the highest precipitation rates. Thus, it hosts the headwaters of the two affluent rivers of Karun and Za¯yandeh Rud. The Karun emanates from the Zard Kuh slopes, where it is known as the B¯ırga¯n River that flows at a distance of 400 m south of the site under review. The landscape in Ku¯hrang County is characterized by high ridges, which has lent it a morphology dominated by vast valleys enclosed by the surrounding mountains. The valleys separating the mountains tend to have
limited flat bottoms, thus agricultural fields and permanent and seasonal human settlements concentrate in these flat areas (Figs. 2; 3).4 The vegetation varies considerably at different parts of the county. Generally speaking, the eastern half of Kuhrang County is covered with meadows, while the western half, Ba¯za¯ft area, features oak forests. The existence of rich pastures has led the settlers of the region to adopt a nomadic subsistence pattern from very ancient times onwards, and in effect, most of the settlements identified in the survey area followed this general pattern.5 The region with its intermontane plains has served as a desirable summer quarter for Bakhtiyari nomads during warm season thanks to its pleasant environment and rich fodder resources. Indeed, the predominant settlement pattern in the region is that of vertical nomadism. Apart from the pastoralists, most of the local villagers move to warm quarters during winter when extreme cold affects the area due to its high altitude.
4 Roustaei 1386(2007), 3. 5
Roustaei 1386(2007), 3.
54
Mohammad Esmaeil Esmaeili Jelodar and Saeed Zolghadr
Fig. 2 Location of C˘a¯ha¯rmaha¯l va Bakt¯ıya¯r¯ı in map of ¯ Iran
Excavation strategy Site description The archaeological site of Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2 (site KD.043) lies a little apart from Ka¯rka¯neh 2 or Site KD.021, in the north of the terrace¯ overlooking the B¯ırga¯n River. As recorded with GPS, the site lies at UTM 3571040. 39 s 0432093 at an altitude of 2242 m. Two trenches were opened on this 100 ' 150 meters site, with the main excavation area lying in J13 square (Fig. 4). Prior to excavation, the small finds were entirely collected from the surface of Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2. The surface assemblage includes different types of stone tools such as blades, flakes, microliths, and bullet cores as well as a number of ground stones and large number of mauls. Pottery with straw and sand
temper, black core and surface colors ranging from light brown to orange were similarly attested in very small quantity scattered across the site. The preliminary analysis suggests a date in the ceramic Neolithic period. The strong presence of stone tools drew the excavators’ attention. Once a grid system had been established over the site, an east-west oriented trench measuring 2 ' 5 m was opened in Grid J13. In addition, midway through the excavation, another 1 ' 5 m trench with a north-south orientation was laid out to obtain architectural and supplementary evidence. We found, however, no trace of architecture or any feature, but numerous sherd and lithics were associated with gravel-rich, loose deposits of possibly tertiary context. Together with straw- and sand-tempered coarse pottery and stone tools visible on the surface, the excavation in Trench J13 produced a type of fine sand-tempered and well-fired pottery that was totally unattested in surface collections. Towards the end of the excavation, examples of this pottery type were exposed in large quantities as the owner of the land lying immediately to the west of the site under excavation started to plough his field, on the surface of which there were no traces of cultural debris visible. Therefore, snow and torrential rains appear to have created a blanket cover over archaeological deposits, rendering several other potential sites inaccessible to surface survey traverses (Fig. 1). The striking point about this excavation was the discovery of direct evidence for the same horizon as the Late Susiana 1 (LS1) period, turning on its head the initial hypothesis regarding the presence of ceramic Neolithic remains at the site. The pottery comparisons seem to evince a hitherto unattested fact that the cultural interactions between Susiana, central Zagros and Fars probably existed as early as the 5th millennium BCE.6 Based on the available evidence the interactions would have already started in the late Middle Susiana and culminated in the LS1 period.7 Since the B¯ırga¯n valley lies in the northwest of C˘a¯ha¯rmaha¯l va Bakt¯ıya¯r¯ı and the Bakhtiyari high¯ land flanks the two cultural realms of Fars and Susiana on their north, here we attempt to analyze the cultural relationships during the LS1 period in the region by conducting a comparative analysis of the ceramic data from Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2 (Site KD.043) and adjacent cultures and central Zagros.
6 Alizadeh 2006, 111. 7
Alizadeh 2006, 33–111; Alizadeh 1386(2007), 62; Fazeli Nashli/ Azizi Kharanaghi 1386(2007), 62; Moghaddam 2012, 44; Carter et al. 2006, 78–79.
55
Central Zagros, Highland Fars and Lowland Susiana
Stratigraphy of Trench J13 Excavation in Trench J13 recorded seven layers. The two lowermost strata represent virgin soil while the upper five include scattered (Fig. 5) (essentially unstratified) cultural debris. These latter deposits, however, showed no traces of occupational contexts, and save for a single stray small fragment belonging to edge of a hearth or a tanur (oven) (Fig. 6) no architectural features were found in them. A brief description of the deposits containing cultural material is given below. Layers I and II represent topsoil that covered the entire surface of the site. The texture was one composed of clay, silt, sand, grit and gravel, and was brown in color, the main elements being clay and silt. The two layers were distinguished based on the presence of turf in Layer 1. The deposit was probably accumulated from the sloping northern edge of the site or from the area surrounding the trench, and according to local villagers had been under cultivation up to ten years before the excavations and had probably been ploughed. The deposit contained finds such as stone tools, waterworn pottery sherds, a clay animal figurine (Fig. 7), a clay spindle whorl (Fig. 21) and some bone fragments. Layers III, IV and V had a texture composed of sand, grit, gravel and cobble, with the largest examples measuring 17 ' 13 ' 4 cm (Fig. 9). The major constituents were gravel and cobble. In the aforementioned sediments there were films of clay and silt particles, the color of which provided a basis for the excavators to distinguish between these layers, which on the whole appeared to have a similar texture. The finds from this context were totally stray, sprawling in the sediments. Another small stray fragment from edge of an oven was the only architectural feature found in Layer III. The finds included waterworn sherds, a waster (from Layer V), a deformed pottery (Layer III), tokens (only from Layer III), clay spindle whorls, stone tools, a slingstone, a quern, a grinding stone, a perforated stone, and a bone fragment (Figs. 10–12). Further evidence for the disturbance comes from the marked decrease in the amount of stone tools towards lower layers, in that Layer I yielded 65 pieces, Layer II 703 pieces, Layer III 498 pieces, layer IV 5 pieces, and Layer V produced no pieces of stone tools (Figs. 13; 22–23).
Fig. 3 Location of the Ku¯hrang reservoir and KD043
Fig. 4 Location of Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2 (Site KD.043) and Site KD.021 on the terrace overlooking B¯ırga¯n River
56
Mohammad Esmaeil Esmaeili Jelodar and Saeed Zolghadr
Fig. 5 Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2 (KD.043), sections of Trench J13
Pottery The finds from the trench were in a tertiary context, therefore the different layers are not representative of cultural developments. However, enough is known from the adjacent regions to permit an analysis of the site based on small finds such as pottery. Though the painted decorations are seriously damaged due to their exposure to water to the extent that some are covered with a lime-scale, black and brown paints are still discernable on some pieces. This pottery type has a fine paste, tempered with fine sand; sometimes white particles also occur. They are buff, brown, orange, olive and occasionally grey in color (Figs. 14–20). Comparative analysis of painted pottery of Trench J13 and diagnostic pottery types from adjacent regions During the preliminary analysis of the form and motifs of the pottery sample from Trench J13, over ten typological categories were identified with parallels
Fig. 6 Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2 (KD.043), locus 103, fragment of tanur (oven) edge
Fig. 7 Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2 (KD.043), locus 100, clay animal figurine
in adjacent lowland cultures of LS1 period. A brief discussion of these types is presented here. A major category of LS1 painted decorations includes the geometric motifs bounded by dots and
Fig. 8 Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2 (KD.043), loci 100–105 and their deposits
57
Central Zagros, Highland Fars and Lowland Susiana
Fig. 9 Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2 (KD.043), profiles of the trench showing the gravel-rich deposit.
used mainly as filler or secondary elements.8 Dotted motifs were recorded throughout the sequence at Ha¯j¯ı Jal¯ıl 2 (Fig. 24,1–11). This motif emerges during the Ba¯ku¯n B2 period (Fars cultural sequence), when the assemblages approach Middle Susiana 3 characteristics for the first time, and continues during Gap and Ba¯ku¯n A phases.9 Also, in the Susiana plain this type appears at the end of the Middle Susiana period and remains in use during the LS1 period, and disappears in the early LS2 period. This development coincides with the emergence of related motifs, in particular in the central Zagros.10 Motifs found throughout the sequence also include a series of bands on the bowls (Fig. 25,1–6). Related motifs are reported from Farrok A¯ba¯d, Farrok phase, layers A: 24–29, B: 37–45,11¯Bandeba¯l II, ¯ layers 11–19,12 Qabr-e S˘e¯ık¯ın in Susiana,13 and Ba¯ku¯n A14 and Tepe Rahmat¯ A¯ba¯d15 in Fars. They were found during Behbaha¯n survey.16 They were notably absent in Jov¯ı and C˘ogˇa¯ Mis˘.17 Lines creating a set of concentric rectangles flanked by checkerboard vertical bands on both sides are likewise among the typical motifs (Fig. 24,12). Vertical ‘‘%’’ motifs (Fig. 24,14), vertical thick, solid bands with a white band in the center and concentric rectangles (Fig. 24,13) occasionally 8
with punctate motifs (Fig. 24,11) constitute the motifs of this category. In the center of the concentric rectangles there are solid triangles (Fig. 24,15). These motifs have been reported from Bandeba¯l II, layer 16,18 Qabr-e S˘e¯ık¯ın19 and Toll-e Abu C˘¯ıza¯n.20 ¯ The motif emerges during the late MS3 and continues into the LS1 period. Three sherds with animal motifs were discovered (Fig. 25,7–9). While the motifs are compa-
Fig. 10 Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2 (KD.043), locus 105, ceramic waster
Alizadeh 1992, 48; 53.
9 Alizadeh 1992, 51. 10 Alizadeh 2006, 110. 11
Wright 1981, 56 Tab. 8.
Fig. 11 Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2 (KD.043), locus 103, re-used ceramic sherd, ‘‘token’’
12 Dollfus 1983b, L. 11: 243 fig. 86,4; L. 12: 241 fig. 85,2; L. 13:
237 fig. 83,9; L. 16: 219 fig. 74,2; L. 17–19: 205 fig. 65,1.
13 Weiss 1976, 110 fig. 29,3–4.9. 14 Egami/Masuda 1962b, fig. 8,1–2. 15 Fazeli Nashli/Azizi Kharanaghi 1386(2007), pl. 4. 16
Dittmann 1984, fig. 2,3–4; 3,22.
17 Dollfus 1983 a; Dollfus 1983 b; Alizadeh 2008; Delougaz et al.
1996.
18 Dollfus 1983b, 293 fig. 74,5. 19 Weiss 1976, 70 fig. 17,7. 20
Moghaddam 2012, fig. 4,28.
58
Mohammad Esmaeil Esmaeili Jelodar and Saeed Zolghadr
Fig. 12 Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2 (KD.043), locus 102, re-used ceramic sherd, ‘‘token’’
rable to the animal figures from Middle Susiana 3 period at C˘ogˇa¯ Mis˘, they appear to have continued into LS1 period.21 Jars with everted rims and tapered lower necks and a carination where the latter joins the body form another typological category (Fig. 25,16–18). Some examples are pierced at neck presumably for suspension (Fig. 25,17), and the neck in most examples is covered in paint. This pottery type emerges in Middle Susiana 3 period, and evolves throughout the Susiana sequence.22 Another form represented concerns jars with everted rims, which show decorations as hanging triangles in upper and vertical triangles in lower register with herringbones separating the two registers (Fig. 25,19). The earliest known examples of this motif date from the Archaic Susiana period,23 with the exception that during the latter triangles hang from the rim while during the period under review, there is a band around the rim and there
Fig. 13 Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2 (KD.043), distribution of pottery and stone tools in trench J13 (Blue: stone tools)
are additional bands between the latter and the triangles. This jar type is also known from Bandeba¯l II, layer 1224 and Qabr-e S˘e¯ık¯ın.25 Similar jars with ¯ present (Fig. 25,20). horizontal ‘‘%’’ motifs are also Still another category is bowls with interior surface decoration in the form of an oval panel surrounding hanging cross-hatched lozenges (Fig. 26,22), and designs in the form of vertical chevrons confined within a thick square panel (Fig. 26,12–14) are among the types that find parallels in the surface collections of Behbaha¯n survey. The next type includes square or oval panels filled with parallel vertical lines (Fig. 26,11). Related material comes from Qabr-e S˘e¯ık¯ın, Behbaha¯n sur¯ and Khuzestan. face collections, Bakhtiyari highland Motifs resembling vertically flipped ‘‘3’’ that fill the plain space between the solid squares (Fig. 24,18) are among the decorations recorded at Farrok A¯ba¯d and sites in Fars region including Tall-e ¯ Ba¯ku¯n A. Gap and Rows of solid lozenges decorated with elongated negative ellipses (Fig. 26,22) make up yet another class of motifs that were in use during MS1 and later LS1 period26 and continued during Ba¯ku¯n A as well.27 Arabesque motifs (Fig. 26,3) recorded at Gap28 and Ba¯ku¯n A29 in Fars and LS130 and LS2 periods31 in Khuzestan constitute the other noteworthy typology. Some motifs recorded in Fars region are also present in the analyzed assemblage, including design in the form of a series of chevrons radiating from a horizontal line (Fig. 26,8) that likewise occurs in Ba¯ku¯n B. Other example is herringbone motif springing from the rim, painted negatively on the interior vessel (Fig. 26,2). It is found in Gap period in Fars. Finally, one can refer to the paint on the exterior body in the negative parts of the vertical herringbones flanked by lines within a negative, rectangular panel and filled with lines resembling vertically flapped ‘‘3’’ (Fig. 26,1). These are seen present in the collections from Tall-e Gap and Ba¯ku¯n A, and in fact are of the typical decorative elements.
24 Dollfus 1983b, 245 fig. 87,4. 25 Weiss 1976, 94 fig. 13,12. 26 Alizadeh 1992, 52. 27
Langsdorff/McCown 1942, pl. 48,12; Askari Chaverdi et al. 2008, 28 fig. 5.
21 Weiss 1976, 103 fig. 22,139. 22 Alizadeh 1992, 50. 23
Alizadeh 2008, 353 fig. 72,D; Delougaz et al. 1996, 241 fig. 35.
28 Egami/Sono 1962a. 29 Alizadeh 1992, 293 fig. 32,2. 30 Weiss 1976, 94 fig. 13,15. 31
Alizadeh 1992, 151 fig. 49,F; 189 fig. 68,C.
Central Zagros, Highland Fars and Lowland Susiana
59
Fig. 14 Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2 (KD.043), ceramic assemblage from loc. 105
Fig. 15 Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2 (KD.043), ceramic assemblage from loc. 105
60
Mohammad Esmaeil Esmaeili Jelodar and Saeed Zolghadr
Fig. 16 Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2 (KD.043), ceramic assemblage from loc. 104
Conclusion Analysis of the form and decorations of the ceramic sample excavated from the Trench J13 suggests that while some of the painted motifs on these ceramics appear to belong to the central Zagros, a fact that may reflect the endogenous nature of the culture in the highland, most of these decorations relate to the Susiana traditions. This may provide an explanation for the cultural interactions between the B¯ırga¯n valley in Ku¯hrang and the Susiana cultural horizon. Similarly,
Fig. 17 Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2 (KD.043), ceramic assemblage from loc. 103
the existence of pottery comparisons with Fars cultures may propose a sort of cultural ties between the two regions. Given the lack of stratified contexts and the total absence of architectural remains, it is difficult to propose a secure chronology for these relationships based on the results obtained from a single season of excavation, and it will require complementary excavations at other parts of the excavated site. The same was the case with the surveys A. Zagarell carried out in 1974, 1975 and 1978 in the northeastern Bakhtyari region, where he set to study the cultural ties of the region, in particular, with Fars and Khuzestan. The four major regions covered by his surveys were: (1) Ka¯n M¯ırza¯, (2) Ema¯m Qeys, Gandoman and ¯ C˘ogˇa¯ Kor plains, (3) Lordega¯n, Ba¯rez, S˘¯ıvand, Qala Madrasa,¯ Dehda¯z, Hulu Sa’d, Bolgˇa¯r, and (4) Shahrekord plain. Zagarell assigns the related layers of a site belonging to LS1 period (i.e. Bandeba¯l, layers 11–16) to a more general period of middle Chalcolithic. He describes the middle Chalcolithic period in terms of two shorter phases: (1) C˘ellehga¯h phase, which is contemporary with Ja’far A¯ba¯d, layers 3m-n, Bandeba¯l, layers 11–22, and Mehmeh and Ba¯ya¯t phases at Tappe Sabz; and (2) Afgˇa¯n phase, which relates to Ba¯ku¯n A1-4, and was relatively pervasive in Bakhtiyari region. In all sites the phase was associated with C˘ellehga¯h phase.32 32 In fact he has recorded the Fars and Khuzestan ceramics types
together.
61
Central Zagros, Highland Fars and Lowland Susiana
Fig. 18 Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2 (KD.043), ceramic assemblage from loc. 103
According to Zagarell, the ceramic samples, in particular those from contexts immediately beneath the Afgˇa¯n phase, are rather comparable to the painted buff material from Fars than Khuzestan. This appears to be much less the case in Shahrekord, where the assemblage seems to be rather influenced by the Khuzestan traditions, since the region represented the northern boundary of his survey area. He subdivides the earlier middle Chalcolithic period in Shahrekord into two phases: one equivalent to Jov¯ı, layers 5–10 and Bandeba¯l, layers 17–22; the other corresponding to Bandeba¯l, layers 11–16. Zagarell suggests that the overall ceramic composition varied across different regions.33 Regarding the Bakhtiyari region, this discrepancy may rather be attributed to a spatial than a temporal factor. The reason for this claim is the relative chronology defined on the basis of finds from the Site KD.043. Susiana type pottery belongs to
" Fig. 19 Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2 (KD.043), ceramic assemblage from loc. 103 33
Zagarell 1387(2008), 43–52.
62
Mohammad Esmaeil Esmaeili Jelodar and Saeed Zolghadr
Fig. 20 Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2 (KD.043), ceramic assemblage from loc. 103
LS1 period, while those resembling Fars types are comparable to Ba¯ku¯n B2, Ba¯ku¯n A and in particular Gap, since the motifs on Tall-e Gap material have parallels both in Ba¯ku¯n B2 and the earlier Ba¯ku¯n A period. On the other hand, they share several cha-
Fig. 21 Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2 (KD.043), spindle whorl from loc. 103
racteristics with LS1 period and belong to the same horizon.34 Therefore, Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2 or the Site KD.043 is a single period settlement. The evidence presented above appears to reflect the nature of the intra-regional relationships between the central Zagros settlements, and their interactions with the adjacent cultures. Results of the joint Iranian-British survey codirected by R. Carter and H. Tofighian in Bushehr in 2004 also support this claim. The sites identified during their survey (i.e. Site BH56) has parallels, apart from Ba¯ku¯n B11 material, at such sites as Jov¯ı II, Bandeba¯l II (MS3) and Behbaha¯n.35 Though Site BH56 belongs to the same horizon as MS3 period, it can be concluded that cultural interactions between Fars and Susiana cultures outdated LS1 period. While discovery of a waster and a deformed sherd at Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2 may be taken as evidence for 34 35
Alizadeh 2006, 32; Fazeli Nashli/Azizi Kharanaghi 1386(2007) 62–63. Carter et al. 2006, 76–79.
63
Central Zagros, Highland Fars and Lowland Susiana
Fig. 22 Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2 (KD.043), lithic assemblage from loc. 103
local pottery production, secure conclusions must await more conclusive evidence such as excavation of kilns or technical analyses. A strong presence of stone tools in surface collection and in the sequence recorded in Trench J13, and the discovery there of cores, flakes, blades and other related stone tools may hint at a local stone tool industry.
press our gratitude to Dr. Hasan Fazeli Nashli, then chairman of the Iranian Center for Archaeological Research, and Mr. Esfandiyar Heidaripour, president of the C˘a¯ha¯rmaha¯l va Bakt¯ıya¯r¯ı Cultural Heritage, ¯ Handicrafts and Tourism General Office, and Mrs. Riyahi, then deputy president of the General Office, for their much needed support.
Acknowledgements The excavation program partially reported here would not have been possible without the help of the excavation team members (Fig. 27): Dr. Alireza Khosrowzaded of S˘ahr-e Kord University (second in command of the team), Hamed Zifar, Behnam Ghanbari and Hamzeh Karimi, all MA candidates, and Ahmad Sabet Haji Darvish, BA in Archaeology, all from the Islamic Azad University, Abhar Branch. We are grateful to all of them. Our heartfelt thanks go to Drs. Abbas Alizadeh, Kourosh Roustaei and Abbas Moghaddam for their insightful comments on the manuscript, and in particular to Samad Elliyoun for the translation of the article. Thanks are also due to the kind people of B¯ırga¯n for all their hospitability and generous helps. We would also like to ex-
Fig. 23 Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2 (KD.043), selection of lithic cores from loc. 103
64
Fig. 24 Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2 (KD.043), painted ceramics from layers III–V
Mohammad Esmaeil Esmaeili Jelodar and Saeed Zolghadr
Central Zagros, Highland Fars and Lowland Susiana
65
Fig. 25 Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2 (KD.043), painted ceramics from layers III–V
66
Fig. 26 Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2 (KD.043), painted ceramics from layers III–V
Mohammad Esmaeil Esmaeili Jelodar and Saeed Zolghadr
67
Central Zagros, Highland Fars and Lowland Susiana
Fig. 27 Right to left: 1. M. molaei 2. M. Zarrinkooh 3. A. Khosrowzadeh 4. A. R. Darvishi, 5. B. Ghanbari 6. S. Zolghadr 7. S. Ebrahimi, 8. Dr. A. Alizadeh 9. Dr. K. Roustaei 10. Dr. Arfaei 11. M. E. Esmaeili Jelodar 12. K. Amirazodi. (Number of 3–6 & 11 is Excavations team of Kuhrangh.)
Bibliography Alizadeh 1992 A. Alizadeh, Prehistoric settlement patterns and cultures in Susiana, southwestern Iran. The Analysis of the F. G. L. Gremliza Survey Collection (Ann Arbor 1992). Alizadeh 2006 A. Alizadeh, The origins of state organizations in Prehistoric Highland Fars, Southern Iran. Excavations at Tall-e Ba¯ku¯n. Oriental Institute Publications 128 (Chicago 2006). Alizadeh 2008 A. Alizadeh, Choga Mish II. A prehistoric regional center in lowland Susiana, southwestern Iran. Final report on the last six seasons, 1972–1978. Oriental Institute Publications 130 (Chicago 2008). Askari Chaverdi et al. 2008 A. Askari Chaverdi/C. A. Petrie/H. Taylor, Early villages on the Persian Gulf littoral: Revisiting Tol-e Pir and the Galehdar Valley. Iran 46, 2008, 21–42. Carter et al. 2006 R. A. Carter/K. Challis/S. M. N. Priestman/H. Tofighian, The Bushehr hinterland. Results of the first season of the Iranian-British archaeological survey of Bushehr province, November – December 2004. Iran 44, 2006, 63–103. Delougaz et al. 1996 P. Delougaz/H. J. Kantor/A. Alizadeh, Choga Mish. Vol. 1. The first five seasons of excavations, 1961–1971. Oriental Institute Publication 101 (Chicago 1996). Dittmann 1984 ¨hR. Dittmann, Eine Randebene des Zagros in der Fru zeit: Erste Ergebnisse des Behbehan-Zuhreh Surveys. ¨ge zum Vorderen Orient 3 (Berlin 1984). Berliner Beitra Dollfus 1983a G. Dollfus, Te´pe´ Djovi. Cahiers de la De´le´gation Franc¸aise en Iran 13, 1983, 17–131. Dollfus 1983b G. Dollfus, Te´pe´ Bandebal. Cahiers de la De´le´gation Franc¸aise en Iran 13, 1983, 133–275.
Egami/Masuda 1962b N. Egami/S. Masuda, Marv-Dasht I. The excavation at Tall-i Ba¯ku¯n 1956. The Tokyo University Iraq-Iran Archaeological Expedition Report (Tokyo 1962). Egami/Sono 1962a N. Egami/T. Sono, Marv-Dasht II. The excavation at Tall-i Gap 1959. The Tokyo University Iraq-Iran Archaeological Expedition Report (Tokyo 1962). Esmaeily Jelodar 1388(2009) M. Esmaeily Jelodar, Goza¯res˘-e ka¯vos˘e ne˘J˘J a¯tbaks˘¯ı dar ¯ sa¯l-e mahdu¯de-ye sad va tu¯nele sevvome Ku¯hrang dar 1388 (in Persian: Report on salvage excavation in the area of Ku¯hrang Dam and its third tunnel, 2009). Unpublished report submitted to the Iranian Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism Organization and Iranian Ministry of Power (Tehran 2009). Fazeli Nashli/Azizi Kharanaghi 1386(2007) H. Fazeli Nashli/M. H. Azizi Kharanaghi, Ga¯hnega¯r¯ıy-e moqa¯yese¯ı-ye Tappe Rahmat A¯ba¯d bar asa¯se ya¯fteha¯ye sofa¯l¯ı (in Persian: Comparative Chronology of Tepe Rahmat A¯ba¯d Based on Ceramic Collections). Nameye Pazhuheshgah 20/21 (Bulletin of the Research Institute of the Iranian Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism Organization: Archaeology Special Issue), 59–68. Langsdorff/McCown 1942 A. Langsdorff/D. E. McCown, Tall-i Ba¯ku¯n A: Season of 1932. Oriental Institute Publications 59 (Chicago 1942). Moghaddam 2012 Later Village Period Settlement Development in the Karun River Basin, Upper Khuzestan Plain, Greater Susiana, Iran. BAR International Series 2347 (Oxford 2012). Rahimi Sarnakhi 1387 (2008) R. Rahimi Sarnaki, Ga¯hnega¯r¯ıy-e nesb¯ı va motlaq-e saha¯ C˘a¯y Tappe dar osta¯ne Zan˘J a¯n (in Persian: Relative and Absolute Chronology of Saha Chay Tepe, Zanjan). Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Tehran University (Tehran 2008). Roustaei 1386 (2007) K. Roustaei, Goza¯res˘-e fasl-e avval-e barres¯ı va s˘ena¯sa¯ıye ba¯sta¯ns˘ena¯kt¯ı-ye s˘ahresta¯n-e Ku¯hrang (in Persian: ¯ season of reconnaissance and survey Report on the first
68
Mohammad Esmaeil Esmaeili Jelodar and Saeed Zolghadr in Ku¯hrang County). Unpublished report submitted to the Iranian Center for Archaeological Research (Tehran 2007). Weiss 1976 H. Weiss, Ceramics for Chronology: Discriminant and cluster analysis of fifth Millennium ceramic assemblages from Qabr Sheykheyn, Khuzestan. PhD dissertation (Ann Arbor 1976). Weeks et al. 2010 L. R. Weeks/C. A. Petrie/D. T. Potts, ’Ubaid-related-related? Contextualising the ‘‘black-on-buff’’ ceramic traditions of highland southwest Iran. In: R. A. Carter/G. Philip (eds.), The Ubaid and beyond: exploring the transmission of culture in the developed prehistoric societies of the Middle East. Proceedings of the International Conference on the Ubaid, Durham, 20–22 April 2006. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 63 (Chicago 2010) 245–276. Wright 1981 H. T. Wright, An Early Town on the Deh Luran Plain: Excavations at Tepe Farrok A¯ba¯d. Memoirs of the Museum ¯ of Anthropology (Ann Arbor 1981). Zagarell 1387(2008) A. Zagarell, Ba¯sta¯ns˘ena¯s¯ı-ye p¯ıs˘ az ta¯r¯ık¯ı-ye mantaqe-ye ¯ prehistory of Bakt¯ıya¯r¯ı. Translation of: A. Zagarell, The the¯ Northeast Bahtiyari Mountains, Iran. The rise of a ¨binger Atlas des highland way of life. Beihefte zum Tu Vorderen Orients. Reihe B: Geisteswissenschaften 42 (Wiesbaden 1982); transl. K. Roustaei.
Catalogue of pottery illustrated on Figures 24–26 Fig. 24 1. Fine sand and white particles/cream brown; Layer III. 2. Fine sand/cream-brown/red-brown paint; Layer V. 3. Fine sand, cream-brown/red-brown paint; Layer V. 4. Fine sand/buff-grey; Layer III. 5. Fine sand/buff-grey; Layer V. 6. Fine sand/dark buff; Layer IV. 7. Sand/olive-buff/center brown; Layer III. 8. Fine sand/buff-olive; Layer III. 9. Fine sand/olive/red-brown paint; Layer III. 10. Fine sand and white particles/buff-grey; Layer V; comparisons: Weiss 1976, 28 fig. 14,21; Alizadeh 1382(2003), fig. 62,L; 70,B–C. 11. Fine sand/grey/light brown wash on exterior; Layer V. 12. Fine sand/olive-buff interior/ olive center and exterior; Layer III; comparisons: Weiss 1976, fig. 17,70. 13. Fine and coarse sand/olive-grey; Layer III; comparisons: Weiss 1976, fig. 17,70; Alizadeh 1382(2003), fig. 58,H.
14. Fine sand/olive-buff; Layer III; comparisons: Weiss 1976, fig. 17,70; Alizadeh 2008, fig. 42,O; Alizadeh 1382(2003), fig. 46,B. 15. Fine sand/buff; Layer III; comparisons: Weiss 1976, fig. 17,70; Alizadeh 1382(2003), fig. 51,E. 16. Fine sand/orange/red-brown paint; Layer IV; comparisons: Weiss 1976, fig. 17,70; Alizadeh 1382(2003), fig. 24,E; Moghaddam 1386(2007), fig. 4,28. 17. Fine sand/cream-brown/red-brown paint; Layer V; comparisons: Dollfus 1983b, fig. 84,10 (Bendebal II, Layer 12). 18. Handmade/fine sand/light brown/red-brown paint; Layer III; comparisons: Wright 1983, fig. 18,f-e; Egami/Sono 1962 b, pl. 20,7 (Ba¯ku¯n A); Egami/Matsuda 1962, fig. 8,7. 19. Fine sand and white particles/cream-brown/redbrown paint; Layer V. 20. Fine sand/buff; Layer III; comparisons: Alizadeh 1382(2003), fig. 33,R. 21. Fine sand/olive-buff/black paint; Layer III. Fig. 25 1. Fine sand/brown-grey/red-brown paint; Layer V; comparisons: Dollfus 1983b, fig. 74,2 (Bandeba¯l II, Layer 16); fig. 65,1 (Bandeba¯l II, Layers 17–19); Alizadeh 1382(2003), fig. 9,F. 2. Fine sand and white particles/light brown/redbrown paint; Layer V; comparisons: Dollfus 1983 b, fig. 85,2 (Bandeba¯l II, Layer 12); Wright 1981, fig. 15,h (Farrok A¯ba¯d). 3. Fine sand, white and¯ black particles/buff-olive/ cream core; Layer V; comparisons: Weiss 1976, fig. 29,9; Dittmann 1984, fig. 52,7; Alizadeh 1382(2003), fig. 43,M; Fazeli Nashli/Azizi Kharanaghi 1386(2007), pl. 4. 4. Fine sand/olive; Layer III; comparisons: Wright 1981, fig. 15,g; Weiss 1976, fig. 29,4. 5. Fine sand/cream-brown/red-brown paint; Layer V; comparisons: Weiss 1976, fig. 29,3. 6. Fine sand/olive-buff; Layer III; comparisons: Wright 1981, fig. 12,a; Alizadeh 1382(2003), fig. 68,O. 7. Fine sand, white, black and brown particles/ buff-brown/dark brown paint; Layer IV; comparisons: Egami/Sono 1962, pl. 35,B,5. 8. Fine sand/buff; Layer III; comparisons: Alizadeh 2008, fig. 40,N; Delougaz et al. 1996, fig. 31. 9. Fine sand/cream-brown; Layer III; comparisons: Delougaz et al. 1996, fig. 30. 10. Handmade/fine sand and black particles/buffcream; Layer IV; comparisons: Wright 1981, fig. 20,c–d; Zagarell 1387(2008), fig. 9,19; Alizadeh 1382(2003), fig. 66,D.
69
Central Zagros, Highland Fars and Lowland Susiana
11. Fine sand/buff; Layer III; comparisons: Weiss 1976, fig. 19,106. 12. Fine sand and white particles/buff-grey; Layer IV; comparisons: Dollfus 1978, figs. 69,1; 70,5 (Bandeba¯l II, Layer 16); Egami/Masuda 1962, fig. 11,10 (Ba¯ku¯n A); Alizadeh 2008, fig. 48,A. 13. Fine sand/light brown; Layer III; comparisons: Alizadeh 1382(2003), fig. 48,D. 14. Fine sand/olive; Layer III; comparisons: Weiss 1976, fig. 13,12. 15. Fine sand/buff; Layer III; comparisons: Carter et al. 2006, fig. 8,7; Dittmann 1984, fig. 22,10; Wright 1981, fig. 23,I. 16. Fine sand/cream-brown/red-brown paint; Layer III; comparisons: Dittmann 1984, fig. 48,20.27; Dollfus 1983b, fig. 76,13 (Bandeba¯l II, Layer 16); Alizadeh 2008, fig. 46,B. 17. Fine sand/olive; Layer III; comparisons: Dittmann 1984, fig. 31,9. 18. Fine sand/olive; Layer III; comparisons: Weiss 1976, fig. 25,210; Dittmann 1984, fig. 12,19; 53,7. 19. Fine sand/dark buff/dark brown paint; layer III; comparisons: Weiss 1976, fig. 13,12; Bandebal II, Layer 12: Dollfus 1983, fig. 87,4; Alizadeh 1382/2003, figs. 36,A; 40,D. 20. Fine sand/buff; Layer IV. 21. Fine sand/cream-brown/red-brown paint; layer V. 22. Fine sand and white particles/light brown/incised decoration below red-brown lines; layer IV. Fig. 26 1. Handmade/fine sand/olive-buff, cream-buff core; Layer III; comparisons: Egami/Sono 1962, pl. 22,5A.7A (Gap MD II). 2. Fine sand/buff; Layer III; comparisons: Egami/ Sono 1962, pl. 38,B (Gap MD II). 3. Fine sand/buff; Layer III; comparisons: Egami/ Sono 1962, pl. 35,A,11; 39,B,6 (Gap MD II). 4. Fine sand and white particles/cream-brown interior and center, buff-olive exterior; Layer V; comparisons: Langsdorff/McCown 1942, pl. 3,8. 5. Fine sand/buff; Layer III; comparisons: Egami/ Masuda 1962, fig. 16,15 (Ba¯ku¯n B); Dittmann 1984, fig. 3,20. 6. Fine sand/buff-brown; Layer III; comparisons: Egami/Masuda 1962, pl. 24,6; 32,A,5 (Gap MD II).
7. Fine sand/buff-olive; Layer V; comparisons: Egami/Masuda, fig. 11,7.9.11 (Ba¯ku¯n A). 8. Fine sand, white and brown particles/creambrown; Layer IV; comparisons: Egami/Masuda 1962, fig. 14,12 (Ba¯ku¯n B). 9. Fine sand/buff-olive/black paint; surface. 10. Fine sand/buff, cream-buff center; Layer V. 11. Fine sand/buff-olive; Layer III; comparisons: Weiss 1976, fig. 23,154; Dittmann 1984, fig. 2,1; Zagarell1387(2008), fig. 20,13; Alizadeh 1382(2003), fig. 34,L. 12. Fine sand/light brown/red-brown paint; Layer III; comparisons: Dittmann 1984, fig. 28,6; Zagarell 1387(2008), fig. 3,20. 13. Fine sand/light brown/red-brown paint; Layer III; comparisons: Dittmann 1984 fig. 28,6–7; Zagarell 1387(2008), fig. 3,20. 14. Fine sand/grey-buff; Layer III; comparisons: Dittmann 1984, fig. 28,6; Zagarell 1387(2008), fig. 3,20. 15. Fine sand/buff-olive, cream-buff center/brown paint; Layer III. 16. Fine sand and white particles/buff-olive/black paint; Layer IV. 17. Fine sand/cream-buff; Layer III. 18. Fine sand/cream-buff; Layer III. 19. Fine sand/olive-buff; Layer III. 20. Fine sand/buff/black paint; Layer III. 21. Fine sand/cream-buff interior, buff-olive exterior; Layer III; comparisons: Dittmann 1984, fig. 2,23. 22. Fine sand/cream-brown/red-brown paint; Layer III; comparisons: Langsdorff/McCown 1942, pl. 48,12.
Mohammad Esmaeil Esmaeili Jelodar Depart of Archaeology Faculty of Letters and Humanities University of Tehran Tehran, Iran Email:
[email protected] Saeed Zolghadr Bachelor of Archaeology Islamic Azad University (Abhar Branch) Abhar, Iran
70
Mohammad Esmaeil Esmaeili Jelodar and Saeed Zolghadr
Summary
Zusammenfassung
Cultural interactions have prevailed among the human societies from very ancient times up to the present and have constituted a major element of their behavior. These interactions are still prevalent in particular among the nomadic tribes so that one can see this behavior in the modern Bakt¯ıya¯r¯ı nomadic societies living in the two Iranian pro¯ vinces of C˘a¯ha¯rmaha¯l va Bakt¯ıya¯r¯ı and Khuzestan. The ¯ present work deals with comparative analysis of the pottery sample from the site of Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2 (Site KD.043) excavated as part of the salvage excavation program in the area of Ku¯hrang Dam and its third tunnel in B¯ırga¯n located in the Ku¯hrang region and material from key sites of Khuzestan and Fars to gain an insight into the cultural ties between Bakhtiyari highland settlements and the two cultural horizons of Fars and Susiana. Thus, the comparison of Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2 assemblage with material from adjacent and central Zagros cultures suggests cultural interactions between this region and the key adjacent cultures in particular from Khuzestan and Fars during the late Susiana 1 (LS1) period. The present paper also includes a brief description of the excavation strategy and stratigraphy and preliminary chronology of Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2. The salvage excavation program comprised digging in five different areas that were conducted by M. E. Esmaeili Jelodar in 2009 for the Iranian Center for Archaeological Research and Isfahan Regional Water Company (Esmaeili Jelodar 1388/2009) following a reconnaissance and survey program by Kourosh Roustaei (1386/2007) in 2007.
Kulturelle Begegnungen und Interaktionen zwischen menschlichen Gemeinschaften sind ein wesentliches Element menschlichen Lebens seit alters her. Solche Interaktionen existieren noch heute, besonders zwischen nomadischen Sta¨mmen. Deshalb la¨sst sich dieses Verhalten sehr gut bei den modernen Bakhtiari-Nomadengesellschaften in den beiden iranischen Provinzen C˘a¯ha¯rmaha¯l va Bakt¯ıya¯r¯ı und Khuzestan nachvollziehen. Der vorliegende ¯ ¨sentiert die vergleichende Analyse von Keramik Artikel pra aus dem Fundort Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2, der als Teil eines Rettungsgrabungsprogramms im Gebiet des Kuhrang-Staudamms und seines dritten Tunnels in B¯ırga¯n ausgegraben wurde. ¨sselsiedlungen in KhuVerglichen wird Material aus Schlu zestan und Fars, um einen Einblick in die kulturellen Verbindungen zwischen den Bakhtiari-Hochland-Siedlungen und den beiden entsprechenden Kulturhorizonten in Fars und Susiana zu gewinnen. Diese vergleichende Untersuchung deutet auf kulturelle Beziehungen zwischen der Region und den angrenzenden Gebieten in Khuzestan und ¨t-Susiana 1 hin. Fars insbesondere in der Periode Spa ¨lt außerdem eine kurDer vorliegende Beitrag entha ze Beschreibung der Ausgrabungsstrategie und der Strati¨ufige Chronologie fu ¨r Ha¯˘J¯ı ˘Jal¯ıl 2. graphie sowie eine vorla ¨nf verDie Rettungsgrabungen konzentrierten sich in fu schiedenen Arealen und wurden im Jahr 2009 durch den ¨o¨r das Iranische Zentrum fu ¨r archa M. E. Esmaili Jelodar fu logische Forschung und die Isfahan Regionale Wasser¨hrt. Voraus ging 2007 eine Prospekgesellschaft durchgefu tion und ein Survey von Kourosh Roustaei.
