year 2, Issue 4 (9-2018)                   Parseh J Archaeol Stud 2018, 2(4): 51-68 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

1- M.A. Archaeology (Prehistoric) ,
2- Associate Professor, Department of Archaeology, Art University of Isfahan and Research Institute of Cultural Heritage and Tourism.
3- M.A. Archaeology (Prehistoric).
Abstract:   (8529 Views)
The Varamin plain is located on the way to the Great Khorasan and the point of intersection between East and West of Iran in the North of Iran’s Plateau. The plain is fertile in the south of the Alborz Mountains and the deposits of alluvial soils flowed from the Alborz to the central desert, and are the gathering place of human societies with evidence from the Middle Paleolithic so far. This plain, with an average up rainfall, but due to the arrival of current waters, in the past, nowadays, with the construction of two dams on the way to the streets of Varamin, a small amount of this river water reaches Varamin, there is a thriving agricultural and livestock farming, which are still visible signs Is. The Zahistor area is also one of the foundations located on the periphery of the river, which is likely to be permanent, which is currently no longer visible. The site is one of the few settlements where its initiation pottery was obtained in the plain of Varamin, and the key area is located in the East of the plain of Ray and North of Qom. The purpose of this research is to introduce and describe the area as a whole, and to identify and characterize the clay evidence of the site, and its comparative study on the Susa, bang, and primitive culture of the culture. The questions raised in this study are generally about the changes in the pottery of this site, and what interactions have they with the nearby sites? The basis of analyzes relies more on information and internal findings, and field data, and the results also include the full typology of its upcoming pottery and the documentation of another settlement establishment of the urbanization period (its initiation) based on the evidence of the pottery of this period.
Keywords: Zavarehvar, Varamin Plain, Protoliterate, Pottery.

This site is located in the archaeological study of Varamin plain, and was identified in Jawadabad District in 2012 (Hessari et al., 2014). The Zahavar is currently a small part of a brick factory that was excavated to expand the plant to cultural works that had before been seen in the plain of Varamin. It is worth noting, that if the plan was not a factory development, then, perhaps, in years of years, nobody realized these works and remained unknown. Having found cultural materials from this site, the question of the scarcity of the study centers in the Varamin plain was cleared in the studies of the Varamin plain establishments in Varamin plain, but other questions were based on the works of the Safavid horizons of Sialk III and IV, how the clay changes to this site and that what has been interacting with nearby centers. These findings adapted to the Shush 2 cultural horizons in Khuzestan, Fars, Varamin plains, Erisman and Sialk (Hessari et al., 1396; Hessari, 2011; Alden, 1982; Malkeshmirzadi, 2006; Ghirshman, 1934). In the evaluation of clay indicators, the basis of analyzes is more based on information and internal findings and field data. The main objective of this research is to document the archaeological evidence of Late Protoliterate and Early Bronze Age periods in this area, which can serve as an indicator area in the North of the Iranian plateau, depicts the routes to the South through the Chemarshahr to Qaq Qom, Qalidroish and Silak Kashan. The most important approach to this study is to answer the question of how are the findings gathered from this hill can interpret the culture of the cohesion of Silk III to the culture of Silk IV? This is avilible the hypothesis that there was probably a native culture specific to the plain of Varamin, which has been serious interactions with the south and north of the plain.

The Types of Pottery Studied
The zeal was collected from the clay and classified in the field study and then in comparative study in the following species (Ghasemi, 1392).
Type one: The clobug, which is hereinafter called CLEBUG, is made of wheat, and has a mildew paste.
Type two: The pomegranate, called FIGTEG, is a man-made with brown-black or black-colored gray tasting, often with simple (non-engraved) pottery with relatively thin bodies.
Type three: The abbreviation is FIGOP. This kind of crop with orange-brown flavors and a creamy lining is the largest known species in this collection.
Type four: This type includes mostly simple pottery and rarely pomegranate, which has a small amount of herbs in it.
Type five: This type is so rough with a pepper-colored, or curly-colored, cream-molded pottery that is used in it to be large vegetation with high purity of gravel.
Type Six: Such hand-made pottery with a vivid color and desire to have a simple and small bowl known as the Banchi Tray or the Uruk (Hessari et al., 1396: 40) seems to have been made of simple pottery without any decoration and role.
In this resaerch, other types of pottery such as types 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 have been studied.

The appearance of the bevelled rim bowles on this site should indicate some specific and intermittent activities. It is possible to examine and determine some of the administrative-supervisory documents through different sizes of containers. It seems, that the time findings of this site has before been the beginning of the period or the horizon of Susa 2. These examples are proposed in the comparative chronicle of the middle Susa cultural period. The low proportion of applied pottery in this site such as cooked bowls, is may prove non-industrial and non-productive.
Full-Text [PDF 2603 kb]   (1803 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special Archeology
Received: 2018/12/7 | Accepted: 2018/12/7 | Published: 2018/12/7

1. - حصاری، مرتضی؛ و اکبری، حسن (1386). «گزارش مقدماتی کاوش محوطۀ باستانی سفالین پیشوا». گزارش‌های باستان‌شناسی (7). جلد‌ اول، مجموعه مقالات نهمین گردهمایی باستان‌شناسی ایران. تهران: پژوهشگاه سازمان میراث‌فرهنگی، صنایع‌دستی و گردشگری، پژوهشکدۀ باستان‌شناسی. صص: 200-165.
2. - حصاری، مرتضی؛ علی‌یاری، احمد؛ و اکبری، حسن (1386). «گزارش لایه‌نگاری و تعیین‌ حریم در محوطۀ باستانی شغالی پیشوا». گزارش‌های باستان‌شناسی7. جلد اول، مجموعه‌ مقالات نهمین گردهمایی باستان‌شناسی ایران، تهران: پژوهشگاه سازمان میراث‌فرهنگی، صنایع‌دستی و گردشگری. پژوهشکدۀ باستا‌ن‌شناسی. صص: 164-131.
3. - حصاری، مرتضی؛ اکبری، حسن؛ مرادسلطان، محمدشریف؛ معزی‌زواره، سیدمهدی؛ و قاسمی، سبحان (۱۳۹۳). « بررسی پیمایشی جنوب پیشوا، بخش جواد آباد، استان تهران». گزارش‌های سیزدهمین گردهمایی باستان‌شناسی ایران. تهران: سازمان میراث فرهنگی، صنایع‌دستی و گردشگری، پژوهشگاه میراث فرهنگی و گردشگری. صص: 107-109.
4. - حصاری، مرتضی؛ اکبری، حسن؛ و سرداری‌زارچی، علیرضا (1396). «بردپنیر: ایستگاه یا استقرارگاه آغازنگارشی در شمال خوزستان». مجلۀ مطالعات باستان‌شناسی پارسه. سال اول. پاییز 1396. شمارۀ 1. صص: 48-35.
5. - سرلک، سیامک (1389). فرهنگ هفت هزار‌سالۀ شهر قم. قم: سازمان میراث‌فرهنگی، صنایع‌دستی و گردشگری.
6. - طلایی، حسن (1377). «دشت قزوین قدمتی شش هزار ساله». مدت. پیش‌شمارۀ اول. دانشگاه تهران.
7. - عبدی، کامیار (1378). «کاسه لبه‌واریخته: کاربرد و پراکندگی». باستان‌شناسی و هنر ایران. 32 مقاله در بزرگداشت عزت‌الله نگهبان. به‌کوشش: عباس علیزاده، صادق ملک‌شهمیرزادی و یوسف مجیدزاده، تهران: مرکز نشر دانشگاهی. صص: 84-64.
8. - عقیلی‌نیاکی، شیرین (1390). «اسناد محاسباتی مرتبط با فن مدیریت اقتصادی در قلی‌درویش II». باستان‌شناسی و تاریخ قم. به‌کوشش: سیامک سرلک، قم: ادارۀ کل میراث‌ فرهنگی، صنایع‌دستی و گردشگری استان قم و انتشارات شاخص. صص: 226-147.
9. - قاسمی، سبحان (1392). « بررسی روشمند تپه زواره‌ور، جوادآباد، شرق دشت ری». پایان‌نامۀ کارشناسی‌ارشد باستان‌شناسی پیش‌ازتاریخ. دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی. واحد تهران‌مرکز.
10. - کابلی، میر‌عابدین (1378). بررسی‌های باستان‌شناسی قمرود. تهران: معاونت پژوهشی سازمان میراث‌فرهنگی کشور.
11. - گیرشمن، رومن (1379). سیلک کاشان. ترجمۀ اصغر کریمی، تهران: سازمان میراث ‌فرهنگی کشور (پژوهشگاه).
12. - مجیدزاده، یوسف (1356). «حفریات تپه قبرستان- سگزآباد». مارلیک 2، نشریۀ مؤسسه و گروه باستان‌شناسی و تاریخ‌هنر. ضمیمۀ مجلۀ دانشکدۀ ادبیات و علوم‌انسانی دانشگاه تهران. صص: 71-53 و لوح‌های 96-66.
13. - مجیدزاده، یوسف (1378). نخستین و دومین فصل حفریات باستان شناختی در محوطه ازبکی ساوجبلاغ 1377-1378. سلسله گزارش‌های مقدماتی شمارۀ 1، تهران: پژوهشکدۀ باستان‌شناسی.
14. - مجیدزاده، یوسف (1389). کاوش‌های محوطۀ باستانی ازبکی. جلد اول: هنر و معماری، تهران: ادارۀ کل میراث ‌فرهنگی، صنایع‌دستی و گردشگری استان تهران.
15. - ملک‌شهمیرزادی، صادق (1385). سیلک کهن‌ترین روستای محصور ایران. گزارش نهایی طرح بازنگری سیلک، تهران: پژوهشگاه میراث‌ فرهنگی، صنایع‌دستی و گردشگری، پژوهشکدۀ باستان‌شناسی.
16. - ملک‌شهمیرزادی، صادق (1391). روستائیان سیلک. تهران: پژوهشگاه سازمان میراث ‌فرهنگی، صنایع‌دستی و گردشگری.
17. - Alden, J. R. (1982). “Trade and Politics in Proto-Elamite Iran”. Current Anthropology 23(6). pp:613-640.
18. - Beale, Th. W. (1973). “Early Trade in Highland Iran: A view from a Source Area". in: WA 5: pp: 133-148.
19. - Delougaz, P. (1952). Pottery from the Diyala Region. OIP 63. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago
20. - Dittmann, R. (1986). Betrachtungen zur Frühzeit des Südwest-Iran. Regionale Entwicklungenvom 6. Bisfrühen 3. Vorchristlichen Jahrtausend. Berliner Beiträgezumvorderen Orient, Band 4. Berlin.
21. - Ghirshman, R. (1934). “Unetablette proto-elamite du platauiranien”. Revue Assyriologi 31(1). pp: 115-119.
22. - Helwing, B., (2011). “Proto-Elamite Pottery from Area A, C, D and E”. In: Vatandoust, P. & Helwing, B., (eds) Early Mining and Metallurgy on the Western Central Iranian Plateau. Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Mainz: 196-253.
23. - Hessari, M., (2011). “New Evidence of the Emergence of Complex Societies on the Central Iranian Plateau”. Iranian journal of Archaeological Studies 2: 35-48.
24. - Schei, V. (1905). Documents en ecriture protoelamites. MDP VI. Paris. Leroux.
25. - Schmidt, E. F., (1937). Excavations at Tepe Hissar Damghan. 1931, 1933. Philadelphia.
26. - Tosi. M. & Bulgarelli . G. M., (1988). “The Sratigraphic Sequence of Squares DF 88/ 89 on South hill”. In: Dyson and Howards (eds). Tappeh Hessar. Report of Restudy project 1976. Fierenze. Case Editrice le Lettere. 35-55.
27. - Wright, H., (1979). Archaeological Investigation in Northeastern Xuzestan, 1976. Technical Reports No.10, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan.
28. - Zagarell, A., (1979). The Mountain Zone of South-Western Iran-Meeting Point of Lowland and the Central Plateau in the Late Prehistoric Period. Akten des 7. International KongerssesfüriranischeKunst und Archäologie. München 7-10 septamber 1976, Ami, Ergänzungsband 6, Berlin.

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.