[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
Home::
Journal Information::
Articles archive::
For Authors::
For Reviewers::
Registration::
Contact us::
Site Facilities::
هزینه بررسی و انتشار مقالات::
::
Search in website

Advanced Search
..
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
..
:: Search published articles ::
Showing 3 results for Zamani

Morteza Zamani, Sirvan Mohammadi Ghasrian, Ali Behnia,
year 2, Issue 4 (9-2018)
Abstract

Abstract
The first season of archaeological survey in Marivan by a team from University of Bu-Ali sina Hamedan was lead to identify some prehistoric sites from Middle Paleolithic to Chalcolithic period. As a result of in mentioned investigation prehistoric cultural sequence of the area from Middle Paleolithic to Middle Chalcolithic period (except Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic) have been identified. So, there was a main question about the absence of Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic period sites of Marivan area. Fortunately, during our recent archaeological survey in Marivan, we succeeded in discovering an interesting site (Qala Ziwa) which has traces Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic (J ware). In addition to Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic (J ware), some typical Dalma related pottery was also sampled from the site. Among mentioned potteries, we believe that most important period can be considered as Early Chalcolithic period. Against other regions of Western Iran particularly Central Zagros that many Early Chalcolithic period sites were identified, this area is really less known and obviously Qala Ziwa is one of the first Early Chalcolithic period site ever reported from Marivan area. This site has typical J ware and compared with similar Early Chalcolithic period sites in Central Zagros. This pottery has been related to the Western parts of Central Zagros like Mahidasht zone and discovering J ware in Marivan can added this area to the distribution zone of this culture also. As mentioned, surface survey of the site showing that Qala Ziwa has a complete sequence from Late Neolithic to Middle Chalcolithic period. So, excavation of the site in order to clarifying stratigraphy of the site would yield valuable information regarding too late six millennium B.C archaeological studies of Western Iran.
Keywords: Qala Ziwa, Late Neolithic, Early Chalcolithic, J Ware, Marivan.

Introduction
Looking to the geographical position of Marivan area, it became clear that this region is placed between 2 of the main archaeological zone of entire Western Iran (Central Zagros in South and Urmia lake basin in North). Prehistoric Archaeologist studies concentrated at those 2 mentioned zone and did not pay attention to the prehistoric sites (particularly Neolithic period) of studied (Marivan and adjacent areas). Fortunately, the situation has changed recently and a few Neolithic period sites have been reported not only in Marivan but at the areas like Bijar region (Motarjem & Sharifi, 2018). For the first time was identified 2 Neolithic sites in 2002 (Mohammadifar & Motarjem, 2003, 2015). Two Marivan Neolithic period sites (Tepe Hamaomin and Hamamorad) dating to early period of Neolithic (Mohammadifar & Motarjem, 2003, 2015) and as mentioned, there was not any information about Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic period sites of the area. Noted that as result of first archaeology survey of Marivan by Bu – Ali sina university expedition some sites from Middle Paleolithic to Middle Chalcolithic period (except Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic sites) reported. So, there was this important question that what happened after Early Neolithic period in Marivan region and why no Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic site was reported? Why there is such long gap time (more than 3 millinume) in this area? Discovering Qala Ziwa which contain cultural deposits from Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic is may fill this cultural gap obviously.

Methodology
The research methodology uses in this study is based on primary surface survey. Regarding to the importance of the site for late 6 millennium B.C archaeological studies, the site was surveyed carefully and from each periods typical pottery was sampled. As common in archaeological studies the sampled potteries have been sorted, photographed and analyzed. Our preliminary analyzes showing that this site has 3 different archaeological deposits: Late Neolithic (?), Early Chalcolithic, and early phase of Middle Chalcolithic period (Dalma phase). Any way future studies and even excavation would tell us more about this interesting site. 

Conclusion
Even as result human interference like agricultural activity the surface of the site was damaged, and it is not possible to sample data systematically, but distribution pattern of surface pottery was really interesting. As mentioned, surface pottery showing that the site would contain the deposits of 3 different archaeological periods:  Late Neolithic (?), Early Chalcolithic, and early phase of Middle Chalcolithic period (Dalma phase). The pottery of last period (Dalma phase) scattered at the highest level of Tepe, J ware was sampled in Middle part and   Late Neolithic shreds distributed at the lowest level of the site. Even such surface observation is not so trusted and archaeological excavation may show something different, but this pattern is really similar the stratigraphy of some Central Zagros sites like Seabed and Chogha Maran. In Chogha Maran the Early Chalcolithic deposits characterized by J ware lay on the virgin soil and Middle Chalcolithic is the upper one. In Siabid the most ancient cultural deposits belonging to Late Neolithic period which Early Chalcolithic (J ware) and Middle Chalcolithic are upper layers. But in some other site like recent excavated site like Tepe Qeshlagh in Bijar the situation is completely different. In Tepe Qeshlagh the most ancient layer is Late Neolithic deposit which upper layer is Dalma phase. But as mentioned in Tepe Qala Ziwa and some other Central Zagros sites, J ware would place between Late Neolithic layer and early phase of Middle Chalcolithic period (Dalma period). All mentioned document demonstrated that this new discovered site can be compare with Central Zagros region and particularly Western part like Mahidasht zone. As mentioned there was not any information about Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic period of this area of Western Iran and Qala Ziwa is one of the first discovered site of this period. Obviously, future archaeological survey and excavation would yield remarkable information about archaeology of late six millennium B.C of Western Iran. 

Morteza Zamani, Sirvan Mohammadi Ghasrian,
year 2, Issue 6 (3-2019)
Abstract

Abstract
The Marivan Plain is a small elongated alluvial plain which lies at the westernmost extent of the Zagros Mountains in the Iranian province of Kurdistan and c. 80 km west of the provincial capital Sanandaj. The plain is c. 60 km from the Iraqi city of Sulaymaniyah and less than 20 km from the Sharizor Plain in Iraq to the west. The plain is located between two archaeologically important regions of western Iran: the central Zagros to the southeast and the Lake Urmia region to the northeast. Early studies of prehistoric periods were mainly conducted in these two regions, while little attention was paid to the region of Marivan. Prior to the commencement of the 2018 project, an earlier survey in the Marivan region had been carried out by Department of Archaeology at Bu-Ali Sina University in Hamadan (Iran). Research focused on the Palaeolithic and Neolithic periods and, unfortunately, evidence from the Chalcolithic periods is yet to be published. In 2018, we began to re-examine ancient settlement in the Marivan region with a 4 week survey. The survey identified and documented more than 60 sites. Preliminary studies of the material collected during the survey resulted in the identification of about 13 sites dating to the Chalcolithic period; it was possible to differentiate the material sufficiently to allocate occupation at the sites to the Early, Middle and Late Chalcolithic periods. This paper presents the important and new evidence of the development of Late Chalcolithic period settlement and is starting to provide an insight into the impact of the Uruk Expansion in this part of the Zagros Mountains. Even the Late Chalcolithic (LC) period in Marivan area is somewhat overlap to Uruk (early, middle and late) period in Mesopotamia, until LC5 phase (Tepe Rasha), not any Mesopotamian influences is evident in Marivan sites. 
Keywords: Marivan Plain, Late Chalcolithic, Uruk, Mesopotamia, Tape Godin.

Introduction
This paper presents the first results from the Marivan Plain Survey (MPS) in the province of Kurdistan – one of the westernmost regions of Iran and the Zagros Mountains. The project recorded important new evidence of the development of Late Chalcolithic period settlement and is starting to provide an insight into the impact of the Uruk Expansion in this part of the Zagros Mountains. The MPS project began work on the Marivan Plain in the summer of 2018. It is undertaking a review of previous survey work in the region and is directed by Morteza Zamani with the assistance of Sirvan Mohammadi Ghasrian. The Marivan Plain is a small elongated alluvial plain (UTM 38S 603000E, 3930000N) which lies at the westernmost extent of the Zagros Mountains in the Iranian province of Kurdistan and c. 80 km west of the provincial capital Sanandaj. The plain is c. 60 km from the Iraqi city of Sulaymaniyah and less than 20 km from the Sharizor Plain in Iraq to the west. In the past, the plain of Marivan with its picturesque Lake Zerewar an important node in the communication routes between Iraq and Iran. The plain is located between two archaeologically important regions of western Iran: the central Zagros to the southeast and the Lake Urmia region to the northeast. Early studies of prehistoric periods were mainly conducted in these two regions, while little attention was paid to the region of Marivan. In 2018 the MPS began to re-examine ancient settlement in the Marivan region with a 4 week survey. The survey identified and documented more than 60 sites. Preliminary studies of the material collected during the survey resulted in the identification of about 13 sites dating to the Chalcolithic period; it was possible to differentiate the material sufficiently to allocate occupation at the sites to the Early, Middle and Late Chalcolithic periods.

Conclusion
Investigations conducted by the MPS on the Marivan Plain have resulted in the identification of two preliminary trends related to LC period sites:
Firstly, the MPS has recorded several sites dating to the Middle Chalcolithic and the later part of the LC period. Except for a few earlier LC (2) shreds (Godin VII/VI:3 period) identified from the site of Aba Fatol, not any LC 2 sites have yet been confirmed on the Marivan plain. This contrasts with other areas of western Iran and the province of Kurdistan where early LC2 sites are common. At this stage of research on the plain, it seems that there was a lower number of sites in the earlier LC (LC2) compared to both the previous Middle Chalcolithic period (Seh Gabi and Dalma pottery traditions) and the subsequent later part of the Late Chalcolithic –LC 3-5 (Godin VI: 2-1).
Secondly, the MPS recorded Uruk culture related material from a single site (Tepe Rasha) and only in the form of Bevelled Rim Bowl shreds. This is surprising and suggests that cultural interaction with southern Mesopotamia was limited or that what impact there was from cultural interaction was low and did not permeate into the local cultures. Limited evidence of contact with Uruk Mesopotamia is also evident from recent surveys in north-western Iran and in northern parts of the Iraqi foothills of Zagros. In contrast, distinct and substantial evidence of contact with the south is to be found in the central Western Zagros and Central Plateau of Iran and on the plains south of the Greater Zab River in north-eastern Iraq. Iran  and particularly  its western regions is crucial for the understanding of key events in the history of Mesopotamia, one of which is the spread of Uruk culture from southern Mesopotamian into neighbouring regions during the Late Chalcolithic (LC) period (5th-4th millennia B.C.). 

Narjes Zamani, Hossein Ahmadi,
year 5, Issue 18 (3-2022)
Abstract

Abstract
Chehelsotoun Palace has always been a source of traditional and new interventions in the restoration of murals, which indicates the evolution of views on this issue in Iran. This study aims to understand the evolution of conservation and restoration approaches to murals by referring to the tradition of previous repairs and new approaches to conservation and restoration has studied murals in Chehelsotoun Palace and has sought to answer these questions: What were the procedures of the previous repair tradition? What were the new approaches to the conservation and restoration of murals and their fundamentals? What were the differences between the two? Data collection was done by documentary method. First, by adopting a comparative and descriptive method, the previous repairs will be examined. Then, the research, which has a qualitative and interpretive approach, uses an analytical method to explain the issues about the tradition of previous repairs and the fundamentals of new approaches. In the end, the results will be explained with logical reasoning. The research findings indicate that the previous repairs were performed in the form of repainting on the original murals, in the continuation of the life of Iranian Traditional Paintings. Such repainting, while following the visual elements of the original murals, also has different expressions from the artist in charge of the repair, which was rooted in the tradition of previous mural repairs and their contexts. New approaches were based on historical authenticity and aesthetic integrity, and led to the removal of some of the stages of mural development and reintegrated of the lacunas with a distinction from the original murals. The aesthetic and historiographical approaches of the West were the source of the differences between the new interventions and the semantic procedures of traditional repair which always focused on the nature of things. 
Keywords: Repair Tradition, Conservation and Restoration Approaches, Mural, Chehelsotoun, IsMEO Group.

Introduction
In recent years, the need to pay attention to the tradition of indigenous conservation in accordance with the specific cultural, intellectual, religious, historical and social contexts of each land; has been considered by international forums. In Iran, there are still many points about the tradition of heritage protection and repair that need researched and will cause to be known, like Western societies, the origins and evolution of views, procedures and approaches in the field of conservation and restoration in Iran. Chehelsotoun Palace murals have always been the subject of a variety of interventions, from previous repairs to new conservation and restoration approaches that became common in the mid-1940s. Today, only a few traces of the previous procedures of repairing murals in Iran have been left. In particular, the undesirable evaluation of traditional repair procedures has left no opportunity for their recognition. While in international treaties and documents have always been emphasized the importance of indigenous conservation traditions in each region and the role of recognizing these traditions as an intangible aspect of heritage in its preservation has been considered important. On the other hand, despite the continuation of many new approaches to the conservation and restoration of murals those took place in the mid-1940s; their constructive principles and criteria, and how they deal with previous procedures, have not been studied. This study will also explore the tradition of previous repairs to some of Chehelsotoun murals and how they were transformed into new conservation principles.
The aim of the present study is to gain an understanding of the tradition of previous repairs and the foundations of new approaches to conservation and restoration in Chehelsotoun murals, and finally an analytical cognition of how they differ from each other.
In conducting the research, the following questions were considered: What were the procedures of the previous repair tradition? What were the new approaches to the conservation and restoration of murals and their fundamentals? What were the differences between the two? Data collection was done by documentary method. First, by adopting a comparative and descriptive method, the previous repairs will be examined. Then, the research, which has a qualitative and interpretive approach, uses an analytical method to explain the issues about the tradition of previous repairs and the fundamentals of new approaches. In the end, the results will be explained with logical reasoning.

Discussion
In previous procedures, the purpose of the artist in charge of repair was to Continuing the spiritual dimension of the heritage. The artist performed traditional repairs according to the moral, intellectual and spiritual functions that traditional art had given him. Such repairs to the murals in question took the form of repainting performed by the artist directly on the original mural. These repainting, while having visual elements and general similarities with the original murals, also displayed different expressions from the artist in charge of the repair. The traditional repairs in imitation of the original murals, along with different expressions from the artist in charge of the repair, were a kind of mimesis of the original murals, as a representation of the original mural through the wishes, thoughts and ideology of the artist in charge of the repair. Also, the process of traditional repairs of murals had a hierarchy in the tradition of teaching art techniques. Such repairs, in the midst of the prevalence of the eclectic style of Qajar painting and then the abandonment of past traditions and covenants, were a kind of revival of the themes and features of traditional painting in the form of murals.
Restoring the Safavid identity and recovering the older layers of the murals was one of the main approaches of the new currents of conservation and restoration in Chehelsotoun Palace, As the IsMEO group seldom left evidence of traditional repairs on murals. IsMEO also used a system recognizable of distinct restorative additions to older sections in order to avoid misleading restoration operations in addition to establishing aesthetic integrity. Following the emphasis on preserving all the remains of the surviving murals from the Safavid period, the treatment of the murals with strategies resulting from the application of science gained a lot of importance. Thus, the use of new materials to help materials that no longer had the desired function, found a new place in the conservation and restoration of murals in Iran. It should be noted, however, that with the exception of a few experiments, the results of an accurate assessment of the compatibility between such solutions and the main materials of the murals and the traditional methods of their construction have not been published by IsMEO.

Conclusion
The new approaches to the preservation and restoration of the murals discussed at Chehelsotoun were based on an assessment of the aesthetic and historical aspects of the murals. IsMEO’s methods for reintegrating the lacunas of murals were also linked to the two fundamental categories of the historical authenticity and artistic integrity of murals. Aesthetic approaches in the new currents of conservation and restoration, derived from the perspective of art for art and beauty in a pleasant and enjoyable sense. Following this view; Attention to the main intention of the artist, and subjectivity, found a special place in many approaches to conservation and restoration. In contrast, traditional repairs were semantic in nature rather than aesthetic in appearance. Previous procedures were subject to spiritual concepts and also used visual values to express spiritual and epistemological expressions.
Emphasis on the historical authenticity in new currents was another way of distinguishing it from previous procedures. This view arose following the disintegration of Western societies from the past and the formation of historical consciousness, and forbade the process of re-creation and competition with the original artist in restoration. But in contrast to the new approaches focused on the nature of things and their semantic and epistemological aspects, they were independent of the time and place of the phenomena.


Page 1 from 1     

فصلنامه مطالعات باستان شناسی پارسه Parseh Journal of Archaeological Studies
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.18 seconds with 27 queries by YEKTAWEB 4402