year 9, Issue 34 (3-2026)
Parseh J. Archaeol. Stud. 2026, 9(34): 267-294 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Valipour H R, Mostafapour I, Karimi H. (2026). Kalantar 5, A Middle Islamic Settlement in Upper Gotvand Dam Basin, Khuzestan. Parseh J. Archaeol. Stud.. 9(34), 267-294. doi:10.61882/PJAS.1087.824.2
URL: http://journal.richt.ir/mbp/article-1-1087-en.html
URL: http://journal.richt.ir/mbp/article-1-1087-en.html
1- Associate Professor, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran (Corresponding Author). , h_valipour@sbu.ac.ir
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
3- M.A. in Archaeology, Department of Archaeology, Ab.c, Islamic Azad University, Abhar, Iran.
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
3- M.A. in Archaeology, Department of Archaeology, Ab.c, Islamic Azad University, Abhar, Iran.
Abstract: (223 Views)
Abstract
The Upper Gotvand Dam, with a 90-kilometer-long lake, is one of the largest dams in the country, and its impoundment caused the flooding of a large number of ancient sites, ancient and modern migration routes, villages, and nomadic settlements in the northeastern region of Khuzestan. Before the dam was completed, a team of archaeologists surveyed its basin in 2007. After that, in 2008, a team of archaeologists from ICHTO of Khuzestan Province excavated the Kalantar site and the Kalantar cemetery, and then in April and May 2010, salvage excavations were carried out at Kalantar 4 & 5 sites to obtain as much information as possible, which yielded significant results. Following the excavation of the Kalantar 5 site, traces of residential stone architecture, plain buff and red pottery, and turquoise blue and green glazed pottery, as well as some ground stones such as grinding stones, mortars, and pounding stones, were found. According to typological comparisons on the potteries, it was determined that they belonged to the Middle Islamic period (fifth and sixth centuries AH), and the site was inhabited during the Seljuk period. In addition, it was determined that there is a great similarity between the stone architecture of the Kalantar 4 (a Neo-Elamite site), and the Kalantar 5, and with the local architecture of the region in the present time, both in villages and in nomadic settlements. In other words, the continuity of cultural traditions over several millennia is observed in this area.
Keywords: Kalantar 5, Gotvand Dam Basin, Middle Islamic Period, Stone Architecture, Islamic Glazed Pottery.
Introduction
The Upper Gotvand Dam was built on the Karun River near the small town of Gotvand to generate electricity and irrigate downstream agricultural lands, and a wide range of intermountain valleys, numerous ancient sites, ancient and modern migration routes, villages, and nomadic settlements were submerged in the 90-kilometer-long lake behind the dam. Before the dam was impounded, two teams led by Shahram Zare and Hossein Azizi Kharanghi, respectively, surveyed the area (Azizi Kharanghi et al., 2007). Salvage excavations were conducted by Hamidreza Valipour on two sites, Kalantar 4 and 5, which were found during the surveys in the spring of 2010 (Valipour, 2010a & b). The preliminary results of the excavation of Kalantar 5 will be presented here.
The first goal of the excavation, like all salvage excavations, was to access as much information as possible. Due to the proximity of Kalantar 5 to Kalantar 4 and the similarity of its surface architectural structure with the architecture of Kalantar 4, the excavation team was faced with some questions, the most important of which were: 1- Is Kalantar 5 an extension of the Kalantar 4 settlement and can we consider them as one site? 2- Was the settlement in Kalantar 5 established after the abandonment of Kalantar 4 and as a result of the displacement of its residents? 3- Does Kalantar 5 belong to a different time than Kalantar 4? Of course, given the presence of Islamic pottery on the surface of Kalantar 5, it was assumed that this area, in addition to the Elamite period, would also contain evidence of settlement from this period. 4- Function and type of settlement in Kalantar5.
Kalantar 5
Kalantar 5 is located on a natural hill south of Kalantar village (Ab Zālu Arab) in Lali County, at N: 32˚ 13΄ 42/6˝ latitude and E: 049˚ 04΄ 55/4˝ longitude, 160 meters north of Kalantar 4 and 13 kilometers east of the Gotvand Dam. The highest point of the site is 278 meters above sea level. The Karun River, the closest major water source to the site, flows 4.5 kilometers northeast of the site; a water stream also passes through the valley to the northwest.
During the excavation, one trench was opened at the highest part of the site, measuring 10×10 meters, where the regular stone pieces and traces of walls indicated the existence of architectural spaces in this part of the site. Given the depth of the natural bedrock, it was clear before the excavation began that not much height of the walls remained.
Architecture
A total of six architectural spaces were revealed during the excavation in Trench I. Stone and mud mortar were used in all the architectural structures. The stones used in the construction of the different parts of the complex are soft limestone in small to large sizes. All the stones lack cutting polish but have an almost regular shape. Many of the stones used in the architectural structures are cubed. The walls are rectangular. The walls lack any covering, and even during the excavation in the rubble layers, no samples of mud, plaster, or lime were found. The six aforementioned spaces seem to belong to the same building because they all share walls. It is possible that the natural bedrock of the hill was used as a floor for the spaces. Stone supports were used in addition to all the main and internal load-bearing walls. The entrances were mainly created by not connecting two walls or by cutting off part of the length of a wall. Next to some walls, there are smaller annexed spaces as storage places, which were probably used to store daily necessities or food or fuel, and they lacked any entrance and were accessed from above. A pyrotechnical structure was found inside one of the spaces, about one-fifth of which remains. Since a very small part of it remains, it is difficult to distinguish its function as an oven or else. No evidence of a roof or debris was found during the excavation. Given the relatively small width of the spaces and the absence of columns, the roofs of the spaces were most likely created using parallel wooden poles and covered with mats or tree branches and mud. This reconstruction was carried out in comparison with the current situation in the village adjacent to the site. The reason for this comparison is the great similarity of the architecture obtained from the settlement spaces of the site with the architecture of the adjacent village.
Pottery
The 319 potsherds recovered from the excavation are divided into two major groups: plain and glazed. 265 sherds (83%) of the total are unglazed. Unglazed pottery can be divided into two groups: buff and red. The technology of pottery production is completely similar in terms of form, manufacturing technique, inclusion, firing, and decoration. Most of the sherds are wheel-made (96%). The inner and outer surfaces of the pottery are unpolished, and both sides of the vessels are smoothed by the wet hand method. Rarely, red wash was used to cover a handful of buff wares. The texture of buff ware is much more cohesive than that of red ware. Mineral materials such as fine to coarse sand were used as an inclusion in unglazed pottery; in one of the red potteries, the inclusion is a combination of organic and mineral materials. In general, the quality of buff-colored pottery is better than that of reds, and the number of buff sherds is much greater than that of reds. 236 sherds (74% of all pottery and 89% of unglazed pottery) are buff, and 29 sherds (9% of all pottery and 11% of unglazed pottery) are red. There are 10 sherds of pottery with incised decoration in the unglazed buff group.
54 pieces (17%) of the pottery are glazed. Except for two pieces with green glaze, the rest are turquoise blue. The pottery of this group is in the category of pottery with monochromatic glaze. Five pieces are also of the sgraffiato type with turquoise blue glaze. In terms of form, manufacturing technique, inclusion, firing, and color, these sherds are completely similar to the unglazed buff wares. The inclusion of all samples is mineral.
The reconstructed forms are the jar (44.5%), bowl (37%), and bowl (18.5%), respectively. The sherds date back to the 5th and 6th centuries AH and are dated to the Seljuk period (Karimi & Kiani, 1985; Towhidi, 2000; Kambakhshfard, 2001; Grube, 1994; Treptow, 2007).
Other Cultural Materials
In addition to pottery, other cultural materials recovered included animal remains, pounding stones, stone mortars, pivots, iron nails, iron knife, the bottom, rim, and body of transparent or opaque glass vessels in blue, yellow, and milky colors, as well as a few broken shells.
Conclusion
Kalantar 5 is a rural settlement site from the Middle Islamic period because considering the landscape of the region, the location of the site, the extent of the architectural remains, and the dispersion of cultural materials, it is unlikely that the settlement was urban. There is no connection between the sites of Kalantar 4 and 5 from a cultural and temporal perspective. An interesting point to note is the similarity of the architectural structures of this site with the architecture of Kalantar 4 and the modern village of Ab Zālū Arab and other nomadic villages and settlements in the region. With an ethnoarchaeological approach, this similarity can be considered a kind of cultural continuity in architecture. Perhaps the same environmental and subsistence conditions can be considered the reason for the construction of similar architecture over a long period.
The buildings were constructed using completely local materials, such as stone and mud. All the stones are limestone, ranging in size from small to large, and are uncut and unpolished but have a fairly regular shape, and many of the stones have been broken using chisels and hammers. It seems that the six identified spaces had both roofed and open sections. The three spaces 1, 3, and 4 were associated with activities that required separation from the residential areas; the three spaces 2, 5, and 6, which are part of the main residential complex, were probably places for resting and performing other daily activities. These three spaces are connected by some entrances.
All finds, from functional examples such as pottery, glass vessels, pounding stones, and mortars to decorative shells, indicate a normal settlement, and all of them are related to daily life activities.
The pottery of the Kalantar 5 bears no resemblance to the Kalantar 4 site. Many of them are Islamic glazed pottery, including monochrome green and turquoise blue glazes and some with incised patterns under the turquoise blue glaze. The pottery is not very diverse in terms of color, glaze, type, and theme of the patterns. These potteries date back to the fifth and sixth centuries AH and are dated to the Seljuk period. During this period, the glass industry in Iran was very prosperous (Shishehgar, 2003: 24), and glass fragments recovered from a rural settlement site confirm this.
The Upper Gotvand Dam, with a 90-kilometer-long lake, is one of the largest dams in the country, and its impoundment caused the flooding of a large number of ancient sites, ancient and modern migration routes, villages, and nomadic settlements in the northeastern region of Khuzestan. Before the dam was completed, a team of archaeologists surveyed its basin in 2007. After that, in 2008, a team of archaeologists from ICHTO of Khuzestan Province excavated the Kalantar site and the Kalantar cemetery, and then in April and May 2010, salvage excavations were carried out at Kalantar 4 & 5 sites to obtain as much information as possible, which yielded significant results. Following the excavation of the Kalantar 5 site, traces of residential stone architecture, plain buff and red pottery, and turquoise blue and green glazed pottery, as well as some ground stones such as grinding stones, mortars, and pounding stones, were found. According to typological comparisons on the potteries, it was determined that they belonged to the Middle Islamic period (fifth and sixth centuries AH), and the site was inhabited during the Seljuk period. In addition, it was determined that there is a great similarity between the stone architecture of the Kalantar 4 (a Neo-Elamite site), and the Kalantar 5, and with the local architecture of the region in the present time, both in villages and in nomadic settlements. In other words, the continuity of cultural traditions over several millennia is observed in this area.
Keywords: Kalantar 5, Gotvand Dam Basin, Middle Islamic Period, Stone Architecture, Islamic Glazed Pottery.
Introduction
The Upper Gotvand Dam was built on the Karun River near the small town of Gotvand to generate electricity and irrigate downstream agricultural lands, and a wide range of intermountain valleys, numerous ancient sites, ancient and modern migration routes, villages, and nomadic settlements were submerged in the 90-kilometer-long lake behind the dam. Before the dam was impounded, two teams led by Shahram Zare and Hossein Azizi Kharanghi, respectively, surveyed the area (Azizi Kharanghi et al., 2007). Salvage excavations were conducted by Hamidreza Valipour on two sites, Kalantar 4 and 5, which were found during the surveys in the spring of 2010 (Valipour, 2010a & b). The preliminary results of the excavation of Kalantar 5 will be presented here.
The first goal of the excavation, like all salvage excavations, was to access as much information as possible. Due to the proximity of Kalantar 5 to Kalantar 4 and the similarity of its surface architectural structure with the architecture of Kalantar 4, the excavation team was faced with some questions, the most important of which were: 1- Is Kalantar 5 an extension of the Kalantar 4 settlement and can we consider them as one site? 2- Was the settlement in Kalantar 5 established after the abandonment of Kalantar 4 and as a result of the displacement of its residents? 3- Does Kalantar 5 belong to a different time than Kalantar 4? Of course, given the presence of Islamic pottery on the surface of Kalantar 5, it was assumed that this area, in addition to the Elamite period, would also contain evidence of settlement from this period. 4- Function and type of settlement in Kalantar5.
Kalantar 5
Kalantar 5 is located on a natural hill south of Kalantar village (Ab Zālu Arab) in Lali County, at N: 32˚ 13΄ 42/6˝ latitude and E: 049˚ 04΄ 55/4˝ longitude, 160 meters north of Kalantar 4 and 13 kilometers east of the Gotvand Dam. The highest point of the site is 278 meters above sea level. The Karun River, the closest major water source to the site, flows 4.5 kilometers northeast of the site; a water stream also passes through the valley to the northwest.
During the excavation, one trench was opened at the highest part of the site, measuring 10×10 meters, where the regular stone pieces and traces of walls indicated the existence of architectural spaces in this part of the site. Given the depth of the natural bedrock, it was clear before the excavation began that not much height of the walls remained.
Architecture
A total of six architectural spaces were revealed during the excavation in Trench I. Stone and mud mortar were used in all the architectural structures. The stones used in the construction of the different parts of the complex are soft limestone in small to large sizes. All the stones lack cutting polish but have an almost regular shape. Many of the stones used in the architectural structures are cubed. The walls are rectangular. The walls lack any covering, and even during the excavation in the rubble layers, no samples of mud, plaster, or lime were found. The six aforementioned spaces seem to belong to the same building because they all share walls. It is possible that the natural bedrock of the hill was used as a floor for the spaces. Stone supports were used in addition to all the main and internal load-bearing walls. The entrances were mainly created by not connecting two walls or by cutting off part of the length of a wall. Next to some walls, there are smaller annexed spaces as storage places, which were probably used to store daily necessities or food or fuel, and they lacked any entrance and were accessed from above. A pyrotechnical structure was found inside one of the spaces, about one-fifth of which remains. Since a very small part of it remains, it is difficult to distinguish its function as an oven or else. No evidence of a roof or debris was found during the excavation. Given the relatively small width of the spaces and the absence of columns, the roofs of the spaces were most likely created using parallel wooden poles and covered with mats or tree branches and mud. This reconstruction was carried out in comparison with the current situation in the village adjacent to the site. The reason for this comparison is the great similarity of the architecture obtained from the settlement spaces of the site with the architecture of the adjacent village.
Pottery
The 319 potsherds recovered from the excavation are divided into two major groups: plain and glazed. 265 sherds (83%) of the total are unglazed. Unglazed pottery can be divided into two groups: buff and red. The technology of pottery production is completely similar in terms of form, manufacturing technique, inclusion, firing, and decoration. Most of the sherds are wheel-made (96%). The inner and outer surfaces of the pottery are unpolished, and both sides of the vessels are smoothed by the wet hand method. Rarely, red wash was used to cover a handful of buff wares. The texture of buff ware is much more cohesive than that of red ware. Mineral materials such as fine to coarse sand were used as an inclusion in unglazed pottery; in one of the red potteries, the inclusion is a combination of organic and mineral materials. In general, the quality of buff-colored pottery is better than that of reds, and the number of buff sherds is much greater than that of reds. 236 sherds (74% of all pottery and 89% of unglazed pottery) are buff, and 29 sherds (9% of all pottery and 11% of unglazed pottery) are red. There are 10 sherds of pottery with incised decoration in the unglazed buff group.
54 pieces (17%) of the pottery are glazed. Except for two pieces with green glaze, the rest are turquoise blue. The pottery of this group is in the category of pottery with monochromatic glaze. Five pieces are also of the sgraffiato type with turquoise blue glaze. In terms of form, manufacturing technique, inclusion, firing, and color, these sherds are completely similar to the unglazed buff wares. The inclusion of all samples is mineral.
The reconstructed forms are the jar (44.5%), bowl (37%), and bowl (18.5%), respectively. The sherds date back to the 5th and 6th centuries AH and are dated to the Seljuk period (Karimi & Kiani, 1985; Towhidi, 2000; Kambakhshfard, 2001; Grube, 1994; Treptow, 2007).
Other Cultural Materials
In addition to pottery, other cultural materials recovered included animal remains, pounding stones, stone mortars, pivots, iron nails, iron knife, the bottom, rim, and body of transparent or opaque glass vessels in blue, yellow, and milky colors, as well as a few broken shells.
Conclusion
Kalantar 5 is a rural settlement site from the Middle Islamic period because considering the landscape of the region, the location of the site, the extent of the architectural remains, and the dispersion of cultural materials, it is unlikely that the settlement was urban. There is no connection between the sites of Kalantar 4 and 5 from a cultural and temporal perspective. An interesting point to note is the similarity of the architectural structures of this site with the architecture of Kalantar 4 and the modern village of Ab Zālū Arab and other nomadic villages and settlements in the region. With an ethnoarchaeological approach, this similarity can be considered a kind of cultural continuity in architecture. Perhaps the same environmental and subsistence conditions can be considered the reason for the construction of similar architecture over a long period.
The buildings were constructed using completely local materials, such as stone and mud. All the stones are limestone, ranging in size from small to large, and are uncut and unpolished but have a fairly regular shape, and many of the stones have been broken using chisels and hammers. It seems that the six identified spaces had both roofed and open sections. The three spaces 1, 3, and 4 were associated with activities that required separation from the residential areas; the three spaces 2, 5, and 6, which are part of the main residential complex, were probably places for resting and performing other daily activities. These three spaces are connected by some entrances.
All finds, from functional examples such as pottery, glass vessels, pounding stones, and mortars to decorative shells, indicate a normal settlement, and all of them are related to daily life activities.
The pottery of the Kalantar 5 bears no resemblance to the Kalantar 4 site. Many of them are Islamic glazed pottery, including monochrome green and turquoise blue glazes and some with incised patterns under the turquoise blue glaze. The pottery is not very diverse in terms of color, glaze, type, and theme of the patterns. These potteries date back to the fifth and sixth centuries AH and are dated to the Seljuk period. During this period, the glass industry in Iran was very prosperous (Shishehgar, 2003: 24), and glass fragments recovered from a rural settlement site confirm this.
Keywords: Kalantar 5, Gotvand Dam Basin, Middle Islamic Period, Stone Architecture, Islamic Glazed Pottery.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Special Archeology
Received: 2024/09/23 | Accepted: 2025/02/5 | Published: 2026/04/26
Received: 2024/09/23 | Accepted: 2025/02/5 | Published: 2026/04/26
References
1. - دیولافوا، ژان، (1369). ایران، کلده و شوش. ترجمۀ محمدعلی فرهوشی، تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، چاپ چهارم.
2. - توحیدی، فائق، (1379). فن و هنر سفالگری. تهران: انتشارات سمت.
3. - خلیلی، ناصر، (1384). سفال اسلامی. تهران: نشر میثم.
4. - سلیمانی، شهربانو، (1385). «توصیف و طبقهبندی سفالهای اسلامی». در: عباس مقدم (گردآورنده). بررسیهای باستانشناختی میاناب شوشتر، تهران: انتشارات سازمان میراثفرهنگی کشور، پژوهشکدۀ باستانشناسی: 412-299.
5. - شیشهگر، آرمان، (1382)، «صنعت ساخت آبگینه در دوره سلجوقی و معرفی چند نمونه آن». موزهها، 16 (37): 29-24.
6. - جوادینیا، زهرا، (1398). «مجموعه پژوهشهای باستانشناسی شهرستان بندر ماهشهر». مرکز اسناد پژوهشکدۀ باستانشناسی (منتشر نشده).
7. - عزیزیخرانقی، حسین؛ ناصری، رضا؛ و بارانی، وحید، (1386)، «گزارش مقدماتی بررسیهای باستانشناختی حوضۀ آبگیر سد گتوند علیا»، مرکز اسناد پژوهشکدۀ باستانشناسی (منتشر نشده).
8. - عطایی، مرتضی؛ نیستانی، جواد؛ موسوی کوهپر، سیدمهدی؛ و موسویحاجی، سیدرسول، (1393). «بازشناسی شهر تاریخی عسکرمکرم براساس متون تاریخی و جغرافیایی». جامعهشناسی تاریخی، 6 (3): 30-1.
9. - عطایی، مرتضی، (1395)، «بررسی روشمند باستانشناختی شهر تاریخی عسکر مُکرم- خوزستان». رساله دکتری باستانشناسی، تهران: دانشگاه تربیت مدرس (منتشر نشده).
10. - کامبخشفرد، سیفالله، (1380). سفال و سفالگری در ایران. تهران: انتشارات ققنوس.
11. - کروران، مونیک، (1376). «نحوه تغییر شکل شهر شوش و اقتصاد آن از عهد ساسانی تا عهد اسلامی». در: پرو، ژان و دولفوس، ژنوییو (ویراستاران)، شوش و جنوبغربی ایران، تاریخ و باستانشناسی (سیر تکامل اجتماعی و فرهنگی از هزارۀ هفتم قبل از میلاد تا یورش مغول)، ترجمۀ هایده اقبال، گزارش گردهمایی بینالمللی شوش و سمینار بلو، تهران: مرکز نشر دانشگاهی و انجمن ایرانشناسی فرانسه در ایران: 258-244.
12. - کریمی، فاطمه؛ و کیانی، محمدیوسف، (1364). هنر سفالگری دوره اسلامی ایران. تهران: انتشارات مرکز باستانشناسی ایران.
13. - گنجوی، سعید، (1353). «بررسیها و کاوشهای باستانشناسی استان خوزستان». در: گزارشهای دومین مجمع سالانه کاوشها و پژوهشهای باستانشناسی در ایران: 62-60.
14. - گنجوی، سعید، (1354). «بررسی استان خوزستان». در: گزارشهای سومین مجمع سالانه کاوشها و پژوهشهای باستانشناسی در ایران. 146-137.
15. - مقدم، عباس، (1385). بررسیهای باستانشناختی میاناب شوشتر. تهران: انتشارات سازمان میراثفرهنگی کشور، پژوهشکدۀ باستانشناسی.
16. - مقدم، عباس، (1385). «توصیف الگوهای استقراری دشت میاناب». در: عباس مقدم (گردآورنده)، بررسیهای باستانشناختی میاناب شوشتر، تهران: انتشارات سازمان میراثفرهنگی کشور، پژوهشکدۀ باستانشناسی، 450-413.
17. - ملاصالحی، حکمتالله، (1383)، «جستارهای فلسفه در بنیانهای باستانشناسی، نوشتار نخست: نقطهها و منطقههای عزیمت». باستانپژوهی، 12: 15-11.
18. - میراسکندری، محمود، (1390)، «گزارش گمانهزنی برای تعیین حریم بخش غربی محوطه عسکر مکرم/ جلیعه (KS-1622) شوشتر-خوزستان». مرکز اسناد پژوهشکدۀ باستانشناسی (منتشر نشده).
19. - ویتکامب، دونالد، (1376). «باستانشناسی اسلامی در شوش». در: پرو، ژان و دولفوس، ژنوییو (ویراستاران)، شوش و جنوبغربی ایران، تاریخ و باستانشناسی (سیر تکامل اجتماعی و فرهنگی از هزارۀ هفتم قبل از میلاد تا یورش مغول)، ترجمۀ هایده اقبال، گزارش گردهمایی بینالمللی شوش و سمینار بلو، تهران: مرکز نشر دانشگاهی و انجمن ایرانشناسی فرانسه در ایران: 243-236.
20. - ولیپور، حمیدرضا، (1389الف). «گزارش فصل اول کاوش در محوطۀ کلانتر 4، کاوشهای باستانشناسی نجاتبخشی حوضۀ آبگیر سد گتوند علیا». مرکز اسناد پژوهشکدۀ باستانشناسی (منتشر نشده).
21. - ولیپور، حمیدرضا، (1389ب). «گزارش فصل اول کاوش در محوطۀ کلانتر 5، کاوشهای باستانشناسی نجاتبخشی حوضۀ آبگیر سد گتوند علیا». مرکز اسناد پژوهشکدۀ باستانشناسی (منتشر نشده).
22. - ولیپور، حمیدرضا؛ مصطفیپور، ایمان؛ داودی، حسین؛ ذیفر، حامد؛ قنبری، بهنام؛ و کریمی، حمزه، (1389). «گزارش مقدماتی فصل اول کاوش در محوطۀ کلانتر 4، حوضۀ آبگیر سد گتوند، خوزستان». پیام باستانشناس، 7 (14): 76-49.
23. - هاردیگیلبر، کلر، (1376). «سهمی در تحلیل بافت شهری شوش از قرن نهم به بعد». در: پرو، ژان و دولفوس، ژنوییو (ویراستاران)، شوش و جنوبغربی ایران، تاریخ و باستانشناسی (سیر تکامل اجتماعی و فرهنگی از هزارۀ هفتم قبل از میلاد تا یورش مغول)، ترجمۀ هایده اقبال، گزارش گردهمایی بینالمللی شوش و سمینار بلو، تهران: مرکز نشر دانشگاهی و انجمن ایرانشناسی فرانسه در ایران: 277-259.
25. References
26. - Adams, R.Mc.C. & Hansen, D. P., (1968). “Archaeological Reconnaissance and Soundings in Jundi Shapur”. Ars Orientalis, 7: 53-73. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.136.3511.109
27. - Adams, R.Mc.C., (1962). “Agriculture and Urban Life in Early South Western Iran”. Science, 136: 102-122.
28. - Ataei, M., (2016). “Systematic Archaeological Surveyy of the Historical City of Askar Mokarram-Khuzestan”. Ph.D. Dissertation, Tarbiat Modarres University (In Persian).
29. - Ataei, M., Neyestani, J., Mousavi Kouhpar, S.M. & Mousavi Haji, S. R., (2014). “Recognizing the Historical City of Askar Mokarram based on Historical and Geographical texts”. Journal of Historical Sociology, 6(3): 1-30.
30. - Azizi Kharanaghi, H., Naseri, R. & Barani, V., (2007). “Preliminary Report on Archaeological Surveys of the Upper Gotvand Dam Basin”. ICAR Archive (In Persian).
31. - Boucharlat, R. & Labrousse, A., (1979). “Une sucreire d’époque islamique sur la rive droite du Chaour a Suse, I. Description et essai d’interprétation des structures”. Cahiers de la DAFI, 10: 155-176.
32. - De Mecquenem, R., (1924). “Fouilles de Suse (Campagnes 1923-1924)”. Revue d’Assyrologie et d’Archeologie Oriental, XXI: 113-115.
33. - De Mecquenem, R., (1934). “Fouilles De Suse 1929-1933”. In: De Mecquenem, R., (ed.), Memoires de la Delegation en Perse, XXV: 105-118, Paris: Ernest Leroux.
34. - De Mecquenem, R., (1943). “Fouilles de Suse 1933-1938 (Suse, Tepe Bouhallan, Tepe Husseinabad, Tepe Zohab”. In: De Mecquenem, R., (ed.), Memoires de la Mission Archeologique en Iran, XXIX, Paris: Ernest Leroux.
35. - De Miroschedji, P., Desse-Berset, N. & Kervran, M., (1987). “Fouilles Du Chantier Ville Royale II a Suse (1975-1977) Niveaux D`Epoques Achemenide, Seleuqide, Parthe Et Islamiqe”. Cahiers de la DAFI, 15: 1-144.
36. - De Morgan, J. J. M., (1899). “Fouilles a Suse, 1897-1898”. Revue Archeologique, 15-36 & 161-187.
37. - De Morgan, J. J. M., (1900). “Travaux de l’Hiver 1897-1898, Travaux au Tell de la Citadelle”. In: De Morgan, J.J.M., (ed.), Memoires de la Deligation en Perse, I: 81-110, Paris: Ernest Leroux.
38. - De Morgan, J. J. M., (1912). “Observations sur les Couches Profondes l’Acropole de Suse”. In: De Morgan, J.J.M., (ed.), Memoires de la Deligation en Perse, VIII: 1-25, Paris: Ernest Leroux.
39. - Dieulafoy, J. P. R., (1887). Excavations at Susa. London: Harper.
40. - Dieulafoy, M., (1885). “Fouilles de Suse (Campagne 1884-1885)”. Revue Archeologique, VI: 48-69.
41. - Dieulafoy, M., (1887). “Fouilles de Suse (Campagne 1885-1886)”. Revue Archeologique, VII: 1-9.
42. - Ganjavi, S., (1974). “Archaeological Surveys and Excavations in Khuzestan Province”, In: Bagherzadeh, F., (Ed.), Reports of the Second Annual Conference on Archaeological Excavations and Research in Iran: 60-62 (In Persian).
43. - Ganjavi, S., (1975). “Survey of Khuzestan Province”. In: Bagherzadeh, F., (Ed.), Reports of the Third Annual Conference on Archaeological Excavations and Research in Iran: 137-146 (In Persian).
44. - Ghirshman, R., (1947-48). “Une Mosquée de Suse du Début de l’Hégire”. Bulletin d’études orientales, 12: 77-79.
45. - Ghirshman, R., (1952). “Cinq campagnes de fouilles a Suse (1946-1951)”. Revue d’Assyriologie, 46: 1-8.
46. - Google Earth 7.3.6.9796, (2024), Kalantar 4 & 5, 32°13'42.60"N, 049°4'55.40"E, elevation 243m. Imagery date 06.06.2024, [Online] Available at: http://www.google.com/earth/index.html [Accessed 26 June 2024].
47. - Grube, E. J., (1994). Cobalt and Lustre: The first centuries of Islamic pottery. London: Khalili Collections.
48. - Hardi Gilber, C., (1998). “A contribution to the analysis of the urban of Susa from the 9th century onwards.”. In: Perrot, J. & Dollfus, G., (Eds.), Suse et le Sud-Ouest de I'Iran: I'histoire et I'archeologie, Tehran: Academic Publication Center and IFRI, pp: 259-277.
49. - Javadinia, Z., (1398). “Archaeological Researches of Bandar Mahshahr County”. ICAR Archive (In Persian).
50. - Kambakhshfard, S. O., (2001). Pottery in Iran: from Neolithic Period to the Present. Tehran: Qoqnoos.
51. - Karimi, F. & Kiani, M.Y., (1985). The art of pottery in the Islamic period of Iran. Tehran: ICAR (In Pesian).
52. - Kervran, M. & Rougeulle, A., (1984). “Recherches Sur Les Niveaux Islamiqes De La Ville des Artisans Suse 1976-1978”. Cahiers de la DAFI, 14: 211-236.
53. - Kervran, M., (1977). “Les niveaux islamiques du secteur Est oriental du tépé de l’Apadana, 2 partie, le materiel ceramique”. Cahiers de la DAFI, 7: 75-162.
54. - Kervran, M., (1979). “Une sucrerie d’époque islamique sur la rive droite du Chaour a Suse, le materiel archéologique”. Cahiers de la DAFI, 10: 177-237.
55. - Kervran, M., (1984). “Les Niveaux Islamiqes du secteur oriental du tepe de l’Apadana III. Les objets en verre, en pierre et en metal”. Cahiers de la DAFI, 14: 7-120.
56. - Kervran, M., (1998). “The transformation of the city of Susa and its Economy from the Sassanid to the Abbasid era”. In: Perrot, J. & Dollfus, G., (Eds.), Suse et le Sud-Ouest de I'Iran: I'histoire et I'archeologie, Tehran: Academic Publication Center and IFRI: 244-258.
57. - Kervran, M., Azarnoush, M. & Hardy, C., (1974). “Les niveaux islamique du secteur oriental de l’Apadana”. Cahiers de la DAFI, 4: 21-41.
58. - Koechlin, R., (1928). Les Ceramiques musulmanes de Suse au Musde du Louvre. MDP, XIX, Paris: Ernest Leroux. https://doi.org/10.3406/syria.1928.3349
59. - Lacam, C. J., (1950). “La ceramique de Suse, campagnes de fouilles 1946, 1947, 1948”. Bulletin des Musées de France, 15: 206-209.
60. - Lacam, C.J., (1950). “La ceramique de Suse, campagnes de fouilles 1946, 1947, 1948”. Bulletin des Musées de France, 15: 206-209.
61. - MirEskandari, M., (2011). “Sounding Report to Determine the Site Boundary of the Western Part of the Askar Mokarram/Jaliyeh (KS-1622) Shushtar-Khuzestan”. ICAR Archive (In Persian).
62. - Moghaddam, A. & Miri, N., (2003). “Archaeological Research in the Mianab Plain of Lowland Susiana, South-Western Iran”. IRAN, XLI: 99-137. https://doi.org/10.2307/4300640
63. - Moghaddam, A., (2006). “Description of settlement patterns of the Mianab Plain”. In: Moghaddam, A. (Ed.), Archaeological Surveys of Mianab of Shushtar, Tehran: Cultural Heritage Organization Press: 413-450 (In Persian).
64. - Mollasalehi, H., (2004). “Essays on Philosophy in the Foundations of Archaeology, First Article: Points and Areas of Departure”. BastabPazhuhi, 12: 11-15.
65. - Nissen, H. & Redman, C., (1971). “Preliminary Notes on an Archaeological Surface Survey in the Plain of Behbahan and the Lower Zohreh Valley”. Bastan Chenasi va Honar-i Iran, 6: 45-50.
66. - Rosen-Ayalon, M., (1972). “Niveaux islamiques de la ‘Ville Royale’”. Cahiers de la DAFI, 2: 169-202.
67. - Rosen-Ayalon, M., (1974). La poterie islamique de Suse, Ville Royale de Suse IV. MDP, L, Paris: Geuthner.
68. - Shishegar, A., (2003). “The glassware industry in the Seljuk period and introducing some examples”. Museums, 16(37): 24-29 (In Persian).
69. - Soleymani, S., (2006). “Description and Classification of Islamic Pottery”. In: Moghaddam, A. (Ed.), Archaeological Surveys of Mianab of Shushtar, Tehran: Cultural Heritage Organization Press: 299-412 (In Persian).
70. - Towhidi, F., (2000). The Art and Technique of Pottery. Tehran: Samt (In Persian).
71. - Treptow, T., (2007). Daily life ornamented, the medieval Persian city of Rayy.Oriental Institute Museum Publications No. 26, Chicago: Chicago University Press.
72. - Valipour, H. R., (2010a). “Report on the First Season of Excavations at Kalantar 4, Salvage Archaeological Excavations of the Upper Gotvand Dam Basin”. ICAR Archive (In Persian).
73. - Valipour, H. R., (2010b). “Report on the First Season of Excavations at Kalantar 5, Salvage Archaeological Excavations of the Upper Gotvand Dam Basin”. ICAR Archive (In Persian).
74. - Valipour, H. R., Mostafapour, I., Davoudi, H., Zifar, H., Ghanbari, B. & Karimi, H., (2010). “Preliminary Report of the First Season of Excavation at Kalantar 4, Upper Gotvand Dam Basin, Khuzestan”. Payām-e Bāstānshenās, 7(14): 49-76 (In Persian)
75. - Whitcomb, D., (1998). “Islamic Archaeology in Susa”. In: Perrot, J. & Dollfus, G., (Eds.), Suse et le Sud-Ouest de I'Iran: I'histoire et I'archeologie, Tehran: Academic Publication Center and IFRI, pp: 236-243.
76. - Wright, H. T., (1969). Archaeological Survey in the Areas of Ram Hormuz, Shushtar and Gutwand. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology.
77. - Wright, H. T., (ed.), (1979). Archaeological Investigations in North Eastern Khuzistan, 1976. Technical Reports No. 10. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |