logo
year 8, Issue 30 (1-2025)                   Parseh J. Archaeol. Stud. 2025, 8(30): 87-119 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Variji A, Hessari M. (2025). The Encounter of Narratology and Archaeology (Analysis of Narrative Methods of Jiroft Civilization Artifacts Based on Franz Wickhoff`s Typological System of Visual Narrative). Parseh J. Archaeol. Stud.. 8(30), 87-119. doi:10.61882/PJAS.8.30.87
URL: http://journal.richt.ir/mbp/article-1-1154-en.html
1- Assistant Professor, Department of Islamic Crafts, Faculty of Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism, Mazandaran University, Babolsar, Iran (Corresponding Author). , a.variji@umz.ac.ir
2- Associate Professor, Department of Archeology, Research Institute of Cultural Heritage and Tourism (RICHT), Tehran, Iran.
Abstract:   (1739 Views)
Abstract
Reading ancient artifacts is the first step after the act of excavation. Therefore, dealing with ancient objects as a fundamental pillar of archaeological science, especially paying attention to methodological issues for the analysis of historical artifacts, is essential. In other words, the need to use new methodological capacities, with emphasis on the relationship between visual media and ancient artifacts as valuable sources of information, forms the focus of this discussion. In this regard, in the last three decades, visual narratology has also been considered as a newly emerging method in the history of contemporary art, along with other interdisciplinary fields, for analyzing the meanings of visual texts and for a deeper understanding of discovered ancient documents. Visual narratology emerged from the First Vienna School. Its theoretical foundations for the creation of art history, regardless of aesthetic judgment, also developed an analytical method by which All Kind of cultural creations can be read. The main goal of the present study is also to identify the Different methods through which the creators of these works have created narratives and transmitted meanings, through the three indicators of character, scene and movement. Therefore, using Franz Wickhoff`s typological system of visual narrative in the Vienna School, the basic types of narrative were examined on 6 study samples of the ancient Jiroft civilization. As a result, after examining the frequency or maximum of the most frequent types among the visual samples of the Jiroft civilization, it was shown that the visual narrative patterns in this ancient civilization still follow the scope of Wickhoff typological system. Finally, with the help of typological analyses, the studied samples are formatted into a table according to Wickhoff`s Isolated, continuous and Complementary.
Keywords:  Visual Narratology, Archaeological Artifact, Jiroft Civilization, Wickhoff’s Typological System of Narrative.

Introduction
Narratology is one of the most important methods of textual analysis, first applied in the study of verbal-linguistic media. From the perspective of linguistic narratologists, a narrative is defined as a story that follows a chronological order and consists of a sequence of interconnected events with a beginning, middle, and end.
The groundwork for the encounter between narratology and archaeology in the present era was laid with the help of Propp’s studies-recognized as the first modern narratological approaches-on Russian folktales, emphasizing recurring motifs within the literary genre. In other words, his formalist-structuralist method, by identifying repetitive and transformative patterns in narrative elements, was primarily developed in storytelling traditions and subsequently introduced archaeologists and anthropologists to this field. Moreover, in 1980, linguistic narratologists, recognizing the significance of non-verbal media, prioritized the study of visual texts as a rich source of knowledge. Consequently, although the historical background of visual narrative studies traces back to art history, archaeology, and the examination of various forms of narrative art in ancient Greece and Rome... (Horvath, 2010)
However, following the fields of archaeology and art history, narratologists began studying visual narratives. This marked the first time in the history of linguistic narratology that, beyond literature and cinema, narrative theory extended into the realm of visual arts, including sculpture, figurative representation, relief carvings, inscriptions, and more. Consequently, since the 1980s, visual narrative studies have become a common ground for various disciplines, particularly art history, narratology, archaeology, anthropology, epistemology, semiotics, and others.
The undeniable potential of visual narrative, alongside linguistic media and the communicative/cognitive nature of visual documents, led research in this field toward interdisciplinary approaches. Overall, it can be stated that contemporary studies on visual narratives widely agree that visual elements are essential for establishing a form of visual communication and constructing the meaning of an artwork. This consensus has contributed to the emergence of a new interdisciplinary branch known as visual narratology over the past two decades.
In this regard, archaeologists such as Landau (1991) and Terrell (1990) explored narratives related to human evolution and prehistoric stories from the Pacific region. As a result, they primarily examined the perspectives of key narrative roles in the form of protagonists who undergo arduous trials, overcome significant obstacles, or return to their homeland (Pluciennik, 1999: 654).

Discussion
In this research, an attempt is made to introduce a new approach to the study of visual narratives by drawing on recent methodological frameworks in the field of visual culture studies across different civilizations-with a particular focus on reading narratives or stories within images. In addition to presenting an innovative method for analyzing visual narratives, this study aims to establish more objective and precise criteria for interpreting visual texts and ultimately uncovering their themes, messages, or implicit meanings. This is achieved through the examination of three key narrative components: the actor (agent), the representational space, and all directional or movement-evoking elements within the image.
From this perspective, the proposed method significantly differs from other image and symbol analysis approaches, particularly iconography and semiotics. Overall, these components distinguish the present research methodologically from previous studies on the cultural heritage of Jiroft, which have primarily relied on semiotic and iconographic analyses of motifs-rather than exploring the narrativity of images. This distinction is considered one of the study’s key innovations.

Conclusion
Overall, the focus of this study was on the fundamental doctrine of the Vienna School, with a particular emphasis on Franz Wickhoff. In this regard, pictorial narration is inherently meaningful, generates cultural cognition, and is considered within a historical context. In other words, in line with Wickhoff’s teachings, an effort was made to examine seemingly indistinct events and ambiguous prehistoric incidents within overarching and universal metanarratives, which often reflect grand social transformations in various forms.
The case studies of this research (see: Table 1) exhibit characteristics that demonstrate how the examination of the typological diversity of pictorial narration goes beyond textual analysis and delves into deeper subtextual and interpretative layers. Thus, every representational narrative is situated within a macro-narrative framework, which may encompass an archaeological site, a cultural civilization, or an evolutionary process transitioning from one historical era to another. In other words, the semantic appeal among the narrative samples of this research results from the interplay of the powerful poles of myth, nature, and culture. Therefore, the narrative logic of these artworks emerges through a permutation-based relationship and continuous movement between the cycle of natural life, the mythological realm, and cultural existence, centered around the main character or actors of the scene.
In this ongoing struggle between the worlds of myth, nature, and culture, the dominant force within the scene is sometimes influenced by the mythological pole, manifesting in the figure of a king-hero (Figs. 4 & 6) such as Gilgamesh and Enkidu, who reflect the grand ideals of their culture and society. At other times, with nature prevailing over mythology, domesticated animals in the grasslands (Fig. s 5 and 7) are depicted as integral to their local ecosystem. In this way, pictorial narratives serve as tangible representations of the collective unconscious of these ancient civilizations, embodying their aspirations, desires, beliefs, and cultural and mythological needs through the artifacts and objects of their time. In this sense, beyond their decorative and aesthetic aspects, narrative motifs also reflect the worldview of their creators regarding ways of living, the geographical environment, and the prevalent cultural values and mythological concepts of that era.
As Plato described in Timaeus, referring to nature as “the womb of all change”, the encounter between humans and nature in Jiroft civilization represents an ongoing process of transformation resulting from the clash of opposing forces in nature and the stabilizing power of human reason. Accordingly, the case studies of this research illustrate how historical human interactions with nature are reflected in the uninterrupted transition of pictorial actors through the three essential stages of existence—imitation and assimilation (myth), contact and interaction (nature/ecosystem), and desire and confrontation (culture) through various cultural-narrative patterns of the time.
Thus, in their evolutionary and transformative journey (human-bull, human-lion, or human-scorpion), humans inevitably find themselves in a continuous struggle with the unknown and unstable forces of nature. Consistent with Frazer (1926), the urgent biological and existential necessity of direct contact with nature compelled ancient people to perceive themselves as defenseless against the uncontrollable forces of the natural world. In such a situation, they had to rely on collective intelligence to devise solutions for coping with the fragmented natural world and its creatures. On one hand, in response to existential questions and in facing the unknown forces of nature, as well as to alleviate their inner anxieties, they entered the mythological phase, passively and fearfully absorbing these uncontrollable forces into their collective unconscious. However, in the natural phase, in order to meet their biological and vital needs, they gradually became familiar with the enigmatic surrounding nature through constant contact, discovering its hidden forces. Finally, in the cultural phase-marked by the formation of urban societies and local states-they externalized the absorbed mythological forces and applied their accumulated experiential and cognitive knowledge of the surrounding nature to heroic actions aimed at establishing and defending their civilization and territorial boundaries against external threats. In other words, the passive and imitative human within the mythological realm transforms into a coexisting inhabitant of the natural order and ultimately into people with symbolic cultural identities, engaging in heroic acts. This heroic movement in ancient cultural and civilizational life frequently manifests in the figure of a king-hero.
Consequently, emphasizing the maximal narrative quality in images, six pictorial types were purposefully selected from 144 pictorial samples of the Jiroft civilization. Upon analyzing the sample volume, it was demonstrated that Wickhoff’s three fundamental narrative patterns comprehensively encompass the various pictorial narratives (related to Jiroft civilization’s chlorite stone artifacts) under three general categories: “human narratives”, “grassland narratives” and “confrontational animal narratives”. In this way, the endless cycle of substitutions and transformations in the biological, mythological, and cultural systems of humans was structured under Wickhoff’s visual narratology framework in the form of three models: continuous, isolated, and Complementary  narratives.
The isolated models in Figs. 8 & 9 revealed that by suspending movement, avoiding sequential framing, and focusing on the climax of the story in a single scene, they effectively captured the timeless and placeless mythological world in a tangible manner. In the continuous models, it was observed how, through the repetition of the hero figure within the scene (Fig. 5), the sequence of events could be followed until the hero’s fate was determined. The artist successfully arranged minor actions around the main actors (Figs. 6 & 7) to vividly depict the continuity of natural life in Jiroft civilization. Finally, by segmenting events into successive frames (Fig. 4), it was shown how an artist could convey the essence of a story in a cinematic manner.
Full-Text [PDF 2878 kb]   (366 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special Archeology
Received: 2024/09/23 | Accepted: 2024/11/23 | Published: 2025/03/20

References
1. - اتونی، بهزاد، (1401). «رستم، پهلوانی از عصر شکارگری (فرضیه‌ای نو در باب خاستگاه اسطوره رستم)». پژوهش‌نامه ادب حماسی، 4(33)، 39-61. https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.23225793.1401.18.1.2.0
2. - احمدیوسفی، حلیمه، (1392). «بررسی نقوش برجای مانده از تمدن هلیل رود». رسالۀ کارشناسی ارشد، تهران: دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی (منتشر نشده).
3. - ایزدپناه، حمید، (1384). لرستان در گذر زمان. تهران: انتشارات اساطیر.
4. - آجورلو، بهرام؛ و سعید، اسماء، (1392). «بررسی منشأ نقش‌مایه‌های عقرب - انسان در هنر عصر مفرغ فلان ایران». پژوهش‌های ایران‌شناسی، 3(1): 1-12. https://doi.org/10.22059/jis.2013.36342
5. - الیاده، میرچا، (1375). اسطوره، رؤیا، راز. ترجمۀ رؤیا منجم، تهران: فکر روز.
6. - پیران، صدیقه؛ و حصاری، مرتضی، (1384). کاتالوگ نمایشگاه فرهنگ حاشیۀ هلیل‌رود و جیرفت. تهران: موزۀ ملی ایران.
7. - حسین‎آبادی، زهرا، (1395). «بررسی نقوش جانوری و جانوران ترکیبی در آثار سنگی تمدن جیرفت». هنرهای زیبا-هنرهای تجسمی، 21(1): 21-9. https://doi.org/10.22059/jfava.2016.57706
8. - حسین‌زاده، آذین؛ و شهپرراد، کتایون، (1394). «از بیناخوانش تا بینامتنیت؛ روایت‌شناسی میراث عاشورا در آثار داستانی محمود دولت‌آبادی». متن پژوهی ادبی، 19(65): 119-101. https://journals.atu.ac.ir/article_2188.html
9. - حصاری، مرتضی، (1396). «شناخت، بازخوانی و مدل‌سازی بخشی از معماری هزاره‌ی سوم ق.م. ایران براساس نقش‌مایه‌های سنگ صابونی». پژوهش‌های باستان‌شناسی ایران، 7(12): 83-98. https://doi.org/10.22084/nbsh.2017.8680.1384
10. - خسروی، زینب؛ و افخمی، بهروز، (1400). «برهم‌کنش فعالیت‌های بدنی و رزمی با اسطوره‌ها و آیین‌ها در بین‌النهرین باستان». پژوهش‌های علوم تاریخی، 13(2): 26-1. https://doi.org/10.22059/jhss.2021.315114.473344
11. - رفیع‌فر، جلال‌الدین؛ و ملک، مهران، (1392). «آیکونوگرافی نماد پلنگ و مار در آثار جیرفت (هزارۀ سوم قبل از میلاد)». پژوهش‌های باستان‌شناسی ایران، 3(4): 36-7. https://nbsh.basu.ac.ir/article_562.html?lang=fa
12. - شادجو، سمیه، (1386). «تمدن آرتا». هنر، 72: 190-171.
13. - شیخی‌پور، مریم، (1394). «تجزیه‌وتحلیل نقش‌مایه‌های داده‌های باستان‌شناختی (سنگ) منطقه جیرفت براساس آثار موزۀ ملی ایران». رسالۀ کارشناسی ارشد، شهرکرد: دانشگاه شهرکرد. (منتشر نشده).
14. - صحت‌منش، رضا؛ و اسفندیاری مهنی، زهرا، (1399). «جستاری معناکاوانه در نقوش گیاهی تمدن حوزۀ هلیل رود جیرفت (هزارۀ سوم ق.م.)». دانش‎های بومی ایران، 6 (14): 188-153. https://doi.org/10.22054/qjik.2021.59214.1254
15. - صفاری، نهضت‌سادات؛ و حسینی، هاشم، (1402). «نمادشناسی تطبیقی نقش و مفهوم عقرب در تمدن‌های باستانی ایران و مصر: جانور موذی یا الوهی». رهپویه هنرهای تجسمی، 6(4): 15-5. https://doi.org/10.22034/ra.2023.2003836.1354
16. - قائم‌پناه، نورالدین‌مهدی، (1403). «بازشناسی هویت شخصیت‌های اساطیری مرتبط با نقوش مار و مارخدا در هنر مهرسازی ایلام باستان». پژوهشنامۀ ایران باستان، 3(9): 42-3. https://doi.org/10.22034/ais.2024.437808.1076
17. - کیکاوس‌بن‌اسکندر، عنصرالمعالی، (1371). قابوس‌نامه. مصحح: غلامحسین یوسفی، تهران: شرکت انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی.
18. - ماتیوز، راجر، (١٣٩٢). «گاو کوهان‌دار جیرفت». در: مجموعه مقاله‌های دومین همایش بین‌المللی تمدن حوزۀ هلیل‌رود: جیرفت). تهران: مؤسسه تألیف، ترجمه و نشر آثار هنری متن: 180- 177.
19. - مبینی، مهتاب؛ و حکیمی، رکسانا، (1393). «بررسی نماد خورشید و مفاهیم مرتبط با آن در هنر و اساطیر بین‌النهرین». پیکره، 3(5): 68-57. https://doi.org/10.22055/pyk.2019.14969
20. - مجیدزاده، یوسف، (1382). جیرفت کهن‌ترین تمدن شرق. تهران: سازمان چاپ و انتشارات وزارت فرهنگ و ارشاد اسلامی.
21. - مجیــدزاده، یوســف، (1387). «پــروژۀ باستان‌شــناختی حــوزۀ هلیــل‌رود: کشـفی افسـانه‌ای». در: مجموعـه مقالات نخسـتین همایـش بین‌المللی تمـدن حوزۀ هلیــل، به‌کوشــش: یوســف مجیــدزاده، چــاپ اول، کرمــان: ادارۀ میراث فرهنگــی، صنایع دســتی و گردشــگری اســتان کرمــان.
22. - محمودی، ماندانا؛ و سودایی، بیتا، (1401). «دگردیسی نقش‌مایۀ گاو-مرد در هنر لرستان و بین‌النهرین از هزارۀ دوم تا هزارۀ اول ق.م.». مطالعات بینارشته‌ای هنرهای تجسمی، 1(2): 16-1. https://doi.org/10.22034/jivsa.2023.367742.1028
23. - معنوی‎راد، میترا؛ و رزقی‌راد، مریم، (1397). «تشریح ویژگی‌های بصری و کیفیات زیبایی‌شناختی انسان کنش‌گر بر ظروف کلریت جیرفت». نگره، 13(46): 42-59. 10.22070/negareh.2018.776.22070/negareh.2018.776
24. - منصورزاده، یوسف، (1397). «بررسی نقش گیلگمش بر هنر مفرغ‌کاری لرستان». نامه هنرهای تجسمی و کاربردی، 11(21): 85 -100. https://doi.org/10.30480/vaa.2018.675
25. - ناظمی، شیلا، (1395). «بررسی نقوش حیوانی در یافته‌های باستانی تمدن جیرفت». در: دومین همایش ملی فرهنگ، گردشگری و هویت شهری، کرمان: 10-1.
26. - واعظی، علی‌رضا؛ جمالی، مرتضی؛ اسکندری، نصیر؛ توکلی، وحید؛ و نادری‌بنی، عبدالمجید، (1403). «تأثیرات تغییرات دیرین اقلیم بر شکوفایی و افول سلسله‌ای حاکم‌بر ایران و فرهنگ‌های باستانی جنوب شرق ایران از هزارۀ دوم پیش از میلاد تا دورۀ ساسانی». مطالعات باستان‌شناسی پارسه، 8 (23): 80-59. https://dx.doi.org/10.22034/PJAS.8.27.59
28. - Ahmad Yousefi, H., (2013). “A survey of the Remaining Motifs Of Halil Rud Civilization”. M.A. Thesis, Islamic Azad University, (Unpublished), (In Persian).
29. - Ajorloo, B. & Saeed, A., (2013). “The Survey of the Origin of People-scorpion’s Motif in the Bronze Age Art of the Iranian Plateau”. Iranian Studies, 3(1): 1-12. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22059/jis.2013.36342
30. - Atooni, B., (2018). “Rostam, a warrior from “the hunting era” (a new hypothesis regarding the origin of Rostam’s myth)”. The Journal of Epicliterature, 18: 39 - 61. (In Persian). https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.23225793.1401.18.1.2.0
31. - Arnheim, R., (2002). Art and Visual Perception. A Psychology of the Creative Eye. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.
32. - Basafa, H. & Rezaei, M. H., (2014). “A Comparative Study of Chlorite Vessels Iconography, Discovered from HalilRud Basin”. Sociology and Anthropology 2(5): 196-200. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.13189/sa.2014.020504
33. - Curtis, V., (1996). Persian Myths. London, British Museum press.
34. - Dehejia, V., (1990). “On Modes of Visual Narration in Early Buddhist Art”. The Art Bulletin, 73: 374-392. https://doi.org/10.2307/3045747
35. - Diamond, J. M., (1997). Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. W.W. Norton.
36. - Djindjian, F., (2001). “Artefact Analysis”. In: Robin Jackson & Andrew Mann (Eds.). Clifton Quarry, Worcestershire: Pits, Posts and Cereals: Archaeological Investigations 2006–2009, Oxbow Books: 41-52.
37. - Eliade, M., (1996). Myths, Dreams, and Mysteries. Translation: Roya monajem, Tehran: Fekre Rooz Publication. (In Persian).
38. - Feldman, M., (2017). “Review of the book Ritual, Performance, and Politics in the Ancient Near East, by Lauren Ristvet”. American Anthropologist, 119(2): 384-385.
39. - Frazer, Sir James George., (1926). The Worship of Nature. London. https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.12857
40. - Ghaempanah, N. M., (2024). “The Recognition of Identity of Mythological Characters Regarding the Snake and Snake-God Motifs in the Ancient Elam Glyptic”. Ancient Iranian studies, 3(9): 3-42. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22034/ais.2024.437808.1076
41. - Hessari, M., (2017). “Architectural Representations on Iranian Soft-Stone Vessels from Third Millenium B.C.”. Pazhoheshha-ye Bastan shenasi Iran, 7(12): 83-98. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22084/nbsh.2017.8680.1384
42. - Hossein Zadeh, A. & Shahpar Rad, K., (2015). “From Interlecture to Intertextuality: Narratology of Ashura Heritage in the Fiction of Mahmoud Dowlatabadi”. Literary Text Research.19 (65): 101-119. (In Persian).
43. - Horvath, G., (2010). From Sequence to Scenario. The Historiography and Theory of Visual Narration. Published Doctoral dissertation. University of East Anglia School of World Art Studies and Museology.
44. - Hossein Abadi, Z., (2016). “Animal motifs and “hybrid animals” in the stone relics of Jiroft civilization”. Journal of Fine Arts: Visual Arts, 21(1): 9-21. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22059/jfava.2016.57706
45. - Izadpanah, H., ( 2005). Lorestan Through the Ages. Tehran: Asatir Publication. (In Persian).
46. - Inagaki, H., (2021). “Sacred symbols from ancient West Asia and Western Central Asia (3) The Symbolism of Animal Design in the Stone Artifacts of Southeastern Iran Bronze Age”, BULLETIN OF MIHO MUSEUM, 21: 1-28.
47. - Keykāvus, B. & Eskandar, A., (1992). Qābus-nāme. Proofreader: Gholamhossein Yousefi, Tehran: ElmiFarhangi Publication. (In Persian).
48. - Khosravi, Z. & Afkhami, B., (2021). “Interaction of physical and martial activities with myths and rituals in ancient Mesopotamia”. Historical Sciences Studies, 13(2): 1-26. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22059/jhss.2021.315114.473344
49. - Kipfer, S., (2017). Visualizing Bnotions in Ancient Near East. University of Zurich, Main Academics Press Freiburg, Van den hoeck & Utrecht Gottingen Library.
50. - Kress, G. R. & Van Leeuwen, T., (2006). Reading Images the Grammar of Visual Design. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203619728
51. - Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C., (1988). “The Intercultural Style carved vessels”. Iranica Antiqua, 23: 45–95. https://doi.org/10.2143/IA.23.0.2014046
52. - Lévy-Bruhl, L., (1926). How Natives Think. Translation by: Lilian, A. Clare, New York Alfred: A - Knopf.
53. - Mahmoodi, M., (2023). “The Metamorphosis Cow-man motif in the art of Lorestan and Mesopotamia in the 2nd to 1st millennium BC”. Interdisciplinary Studies in Visual Arts, 1(2): https://doi.org/10.22034/jivsa.2023.367742.1028 (In Persian).
54. - Majidzadeh, Y., (2003). Jiroft, The oldest civilization of the East. Tehran: Iran Cultural Heritage Organization. (In Persian).
55. - Majidzadeh, Y., (2008). “Archaeological Project of Halil roud Basin: A Legendary Discovery”. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Halil Rud Basin Civilization, Kerman: Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts, and Tourism of Kerman. 41-31. (In Persian).
56. - Manavirad, M. & Rezghirad, M., (2018). “Description of Visual and Aesthetic Qualities of Activist Human on Jiroft Chlorite Containers”. Negareh Journal, 13(46): 42-59. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22070/negareh.2018.776
57. - Mansourzadeh, Y., (2018). “The survey of the role of Gilgamesh on the art of the Lorestan Bronze works”. Journal of Visual and Applied Arts, 11(21): 85-100. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.30480/vaa.2018.675
58. - Masseti, M., (2009). “Pictorial evidence from medieval Italy of cheetahs and caracals, and their use in hunting”. Archives of natural history, 36 (1): 37– 47. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.3366/E0260954108000600
59. - Matthews, R. J., (2013). Zebu of Jiroft. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Halil Rud Basin Civilization. Tehran: Matnpub. (In Persian).
60. - Mobini, M. & Rezai Marnani, P., (2019). “Status of Astronomical Symbols in Ancient Iranian Art (from Prehistoric Era to the End of the Achaemenid Period)”. Paykareh, 8(16): 54-65. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22055/pyk.2019.14969
61. - Nazemi, Sh., (2016). “A Study of Animal motifs in Jiroft civilization Archealogical Findings”. Proceedings of the Second National Conference on Culture, Tourism and Urban Identit related conferences, Kerman: 1-10. (In Persian).
62. - Pächt, O., (1962). The Rise of Pictorial Narrative in Twelfth-Century England. Clarendon Press.
63. - Piran, S. & Hesari, M., (2005). Cultural around Halil Roud Basin and Jiroft, The catalogue of exhibition of select restituted objects. Teheran: National Museum of Iran. (In Persian).
64. - Pluciennik, M., (1999). “Archaeological Narratives and Other Ways of Telling”. Current Anthropology, 40(5): 653-678. https://doi.org/10.1086/300085
65. - Rafifar, J. & Malek, M., (2013). “The Iconography of Leopard and Snake Symbol of Jiroft Artifacts During the 3rd Millennium B.C.”. Pazhoheshha-ye Bastan Shenasi Iran, 3(4): 7-36. (In Persian). https://nbsh.basu.ac.ir/article_562.html
66. - Ribeiro, A., (2023). “Action and narrative in archaeology: a brief outline”. In: J. Miera (Eds.). Narrating The Past: Archaeological Epistemology, Explanation and Communication: 6th annual conference of the Central European Theoretical Archaeology Group: 101-128, Archaeolingua.
67. - Saffari, N. S. & Hoseini, H., (2024).” Comparative Symbology of the Role and Concept of Scorpion in the Ancient Civilizations of Iran and Egypt: Insidious or Divine Beast”. Rahpooye Honar-Ha-Ye Tajassomi, 6(4): 5-15. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22034/ra.2023.2003836.1354
68. - Sandars, N, K., (1977). The Epic of Gilgamesh: An English Version with an Introduction. London: Penguin Books.
69. - Schapiro, M., (1973). Words and Pictures, On the Literal and Symbolic in the Interpretation of a Text. The Hague.
70. - Sehhat Manesh, R. & Esfandiyari, Z., (2021). “Meaningful research in plant motifs of civilization of Halilrood basin of Jiroft (third millennium BC)”. Indigenous Knowledge, 6(14): 153-188. (In Persian).
71. - Shadjoo, S., (2007). “Aratta civilization”. ART, 72: 171-190. (In Persian).
72. - Shaw, M. C., (1986). “The Lion Gate Relief at Mycenae Reconsidered”. TSpace (University of Toronto), Archaeological Society of Athens, Greece [Retrieved 25 September 2018]: 108-123.
73. - Sheikhypour, Sh., (2016). “Analysis of Archaeological Data designs (stone) of Jiroft Area According to the National Museum of Iran Artifacts”. MSc thesis of Archaeology, Shahrekord University, (Unpublished). (In Persian).
74. - Vaezi, A., Djamali, M., Skandari, N., Tavakoli, V. & Naderi Beni, A., (2024). “The Influence of Paleoclimatic Variability on the Rise and Fall of Iranian Dynasties and Ancient Cultures in Southeastern Iran from the 2nd Millennium BCE to the Sassanid Period”. Parseh Journal of Archaeological Studies, 8(27): 59–80. (In Persian). https://dx.doi.org/10.22034/PJAS.8.27.59
75. - Whatling, S., (2010). “Narrative art in northern Europe, c. 1140-1300: A narratological reappraisal”. Published Doctoral dissertation. The Courtauld Institute of Art, University of London.
76. - Wickhoff, F., (1900). Die Wiener Genesis. Vienna, 1895. Transl E. Strong as Roman Art: Some of Its Principles and Their Application to Early Christian Painting. New York, London.

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


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