year 6, Issue 20 (9-2022)
Parseh J Archaeol Stud 2022, 6(20): 35-58 |
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:
Forouzan F, Yousefi Zoshk R, Tavousi M. (2022). A Study of the Livestock Community of Susa in Proto-Elamite Period. Parseh J Archaeol Stud. 6(20), 35-58. doi:10.30699/PJAS.6.20.35
URL: http://journal.richt.ir/mbp/article-1-401-en.html
URL: http://journal.richt.ir/mbp/article-1-401-en.html
1- Ph.D. in Archeology, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran.
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Archaeology, Islamic Azad University Varamin-Pishva Branch, Varamin, Iran ,pezuzo@yahoo.com
3- Professor, Department of Ancent Language and Cultures, Islamic Azad University Roudehen Branch, Roudehen, Iran
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Archaeology, Islamic Azad University Varamin-Pishva Branch, Varamin, Iran ,
3- Professor, Department of Ancent Language and Cultures, Islamic Azad University Roudehen Branch, Roudehen, Iran
Abstract: (2479 Views)
Abstract
One of the most important and controversial prehistoric cultural periods is Proto Elamite period, which can be considered as a revolution in the development, growth and development of communication and interaction of the people of that period, in the period of 3300 to 3000 B.C Many changes took place in this golden age, which itself is due to the existence of political and social complexities. During this period, livestock unions were formed, which had an Proto Elamite writting on the inscriptions of this period. The union’s livelihood was based on animal husbandry. The economies of monogamous and farming communities are fully integrated with the livestock nomadic economy, and farmers are therefore the direct economic dependents of nomadic unions. Of course, it goes without saying that nomadic ranchers also need farmers, but this was not always the case. Farmers provided some of the farmers’ grains, but the farmers continued to cultivate. They usually had rainfed agriculture. But in general, the most important livestock economy is herding, and farmers needed to migrate to find forage, and on the other hand, the very hot weather in the area of Susa was not tolerable for livestock, and farmers had to migrate to colder areas. The inscriptions are very important in this cultural period. Inscriptions changed from counting mode to scrolls for managing office and animal documents that were thought-provoking. One of the most significant areas of the fourth millennium BC is the area of Susa, which in this period has a lot of livestock inscriptions. In this article, the authors try to analyze the type and number of livestock inscriptions, the existence of a nomadic union, and subsequently the bipolarity of the Susa community in the early Elamite period.
Keywords: Fourth Millennium BC, Proto Elamite, Susa, Animal Husbandry, Inscription.
Introduction
Proto Elamaite refers to a period in history that chronologically shows 14 carbon samples obtained from millions of times between 3300 and 3000 BC.( Dahl et al, 2013: 358). But the end of this cultural period is not very clear yet (Pats, 1396: 99). Today, there are various sites from this period in Iran, some of which have been excavated, but according to the excavated sites, it covers a large part of the Iranian plateau, and so far 8 of its sites have been identified with an integrated writing standard.some of them like 1. Susa (Vallat, 1971) 2. Sialk (Ghrishman, 1938: XXXI) 3. Tal Geser (Alizadeh, 2014). Proto Elamite writing has an integrated structure in terms of form, writing and in terms of illustrating the ideas of the drawings. For example, in the field of animal texts, all of them have used a series of common or close signs, and in most cases, all of them have shown the difference between male and female goats, male and female sheep, and lambs with a single sign .Also, the same collection counting system is used.
Objective: To study the duality of the population of Susa (monogamous and nomadic) in the fourth millennium BC is based on the inscriptions of Proto Elamaite period, based on which it can be seen that Susa in Proto Elamate period is a bipolar society. Indigenous and probably in the same language, the Mesopotamian family is in the south of the Acropolis hill of Susa and a farming and pastoral community in the north of the Acropolis hill. Each nation provided the economic market for the other.
Research Questions: Has a union of animal husbandry communities been formed in Iran during Proto Elamaite period? Was Susa a community, farmer and cattle breeder in the Proto Elamite period?? What cultural connections have there been between livestock and monogamous communities?
Hypothesis: Considering the similarity of the structure and texts of Proto Elamite in the Iranian plateau, it can be seen that there was a connection between these areas and since the most consistency in the signs as well as the areas found in the herd. Early Elamite writings are related to animal texts, it can be seen that the livestock community may have played a role in this collection. These livestock communities in southwestern Iran were in close contact with Susa to meet their material needs, and probably half of Susa communities were forced to migrate to the highlands due to the large number of livestock in the warmer months of the year.
Research Method: In this research, the aim is to reconstruct the herdsman community living in the Susa area in the second half of the 4th millennium BC, which according to the statistical analysis of the number of livestock tablets compared to other Proto Elamite texts, shows that the most Note that these tablets have livestock provisions. In fact, it is possible to understand the type of livelihood of the Sush community in the Proto Elamite period from reading the tables, which is that the people of Sush were cattle breeders in the north of the hill and farmers in the south of the hill. The tablets obtained, which are mentioned in the research proposal, how to discover and decipher them, are very effective in achieving the goal of this research.
Proto Elamite inscriptions obtained from Susa
Proto Elamite inscriptions were first found in the excavations of Susa in 1900. (De Morgan, 1900: 130) Inscriptions are flattened clay fragments made by hand. They have formed. And are cooked at low heat or not cooked at all. In their study, the authors divided the Elamite inscriptions from Susa into two categories. One is the texts obtained from MDP.17, most of which were found from the north of Susa hill, and the other is the rest of the Susa inscriptions, which are generally obtained from the south of Susa hill. Demorgan’s large trench in MDP.6 had less than 10 percent of the animal texts But MDP.17 has the highest percentage of livestock statistics
Animal Texts of Susa
The content of all Elamite texts is administrative and related to the production, storage and distribution of the product (Dahl, 2015). In Proto Elamite texts, various signs are used for animals and livestock, but among them, only the sign of sheep and goat can be recognized with complete certainty due to the similarity with the example of the beginning of cuneiform can be distinguished from other animal signs. All livestock and domestic animal signs used in the herd are shown with abstract signs. Also, one of the most important factors related to livestock communities is the use of signs of livestock products.
Conclusion
Today, in the southwest of Iran, there are nomadic communities that have land in summer and winter, and apart from animal husbandry, whose main occupation is seasonal and rainfed agriculture, which does not meet the consumption of the whole year. And trade in livestock products and grains with the surrounding farming communities, and since the life of nomads depends on climate and environment, and since the end of the fourth millennium BC, major changes in water conditions and the weather in southwestern Iran has not happened. It is possible that the life of the nomads in Proto Elamite period was the same as now. By examining Proto Elamite tablets of Susa, it can be found that a significant part of them (nearly one third of the texts) are concepts related to wages, payment and in the field of livestock activity or collection and audit of livestock, and Attention is also regular with agricultural activity or payment of wages. By classifying the tablets and also according to the statistical concepts and percentages, it is determined that more than 32% of Proto Elamite texts obtained from Trench I of Domkenam in the north of the Acropolis hill are directly related to the counting and trading of livestock and may be part of the payment inscriptions whose goods Not specified, also related to livestock. According to Domkanem’s explanation, part of the inscriptions of the Great Trench of Damurgan is probably related to the texts of grain, storage and payment of labor wages, and at the time of publication, it was merged with a part of the tablets of the Great Trench in other Sush collections such as the book MDP.17 It has been reported that if they are separated, the number of livestock in the north of Shush Hill will probably reach a much higher number than %32. which in general can be understood the livelihood and life of the people of Susa in Proto Elamite period.
One of the most important and controversial prehistoric cultural periods is Proto Elamite period, which can be considered as a revolution in the development, growth and development of communication and interaction of the people of that period, in the period of 3300 to 3000 B.C Many changes took place in this golden age, which itself is due to the existence of political and social complexities. During this period, livestock unions were formed, which had an Proto Elamite writting on the inscriptions of this period. The union’s livelihood was based on animal husbandry. The economies of monogamous and farming communities are fully integrated with the livestock nomadic economy, and farmers are therefore the direct economic dependents of nomadic unions. Of course, it goes without saying that nomadic ranchers also need farmers, but this was not always the case. Farmers provided some of the farmers’ grains, but the farmers continued to cultivate. They usually had rainfed agriculture. But in general, the most important livestock economy is herding, and farmers needed to migrate to find forage, and on the other hand, the very hot weather in the area of Susa was not tolerable for livestock, and farmers had to migrate to colder areas. The inscriptions are very important in this cultural period. Inscriptions changed from counting mode to scrolls for managing office and animal documents that were thought-provoking. One of the most significant areas of the fourth millennium BC is the area of Susa, which in this period has a lot of livestock inscriptions. In this article, the authors try to analyze the type and number of livestock inscriptions, the existence of a nomadic union, and subsequently the bipolarity of the Susa community in the early Elamite period.
Keywords: Fourth Millennium BC, Proto Elamite, Susa, Animal Husbandry, Inscription.
Introduction
Proto Elamaite refers to a period in history that chronologically shows 14 carbon samples obtained from millions of times between 3300 and 3000 BC.( Dahl et al, 2013: 358). But the end of this cultural period is not very clear yet (Pats, 1396: 99). Today, there are various sites from this period in Iran, some of which have been excavated, but according to the excavated sites, it covers a large part of the Iranian plateau, and so far 8 of its sites have been identified with an integrated writing standard.some of them like 1. Susa (Vallat, 1971) 2. Sialk (Ghrishman, 1938: XXXI) 3. Tal Geser (Alizadeh, 2014). Proto Elamite writing has an integrated structure in terms of form, writing and in terms of illustrating the ideas of the drawings. For example, in the field of animal texts, all of them have used a series of common or close signs, and in most cases, all of them have shown the difference between male and female goats, male and female sheep, and lambs with a single sign .Also, the same collection counting system is used.
Objective: To study the duality of the population of Susa (monogamous and nomadic) in the fourth millennium BC is based on the inscriptions of Proto Elamaite period, based on which it can be seen that Susa in Proto Elamate period is a bipolar society. Indigenous and probably in the same language, the Mesopotamian family is in the south of the Acropolis hill of Susa and a farming and pastoral community in the north of the Acropolis hill. Each nation provided the economic market for the other.
Research Questions: Has a union of animal husbandry communities been formed in Iran during Proto Elamaite period? Was Susa a community, farmer and cattle breeder in the Proto Elamite period?? What cultural connections have there been between livestock and monogamous communities?
Hypothesis: Considering the similarity of the structure and texts of Proto Elamite in the Iranian plateau, it can be seen that there was a connection between these areas and since the most consistency in the signs as well as the areas found in the herd. Early Elamite writings are related to animal texts, it can be seen that the livestock community may have played a role in this collection. These livestock communities in southwestern Iran were in close contact with Susa to meet their material needs, and probably half of Susa communities were forced to migrate to the highlands due to the large number of livestock in the warmer months of the year.
Research Method: In this research, the aim is to reconstruct the herdsman community living in the Susa area in the second half of the 4th millennium BC, which according to the statistical analysis of the number of livestock tablets compared to other Proto Elamite texts, shows that the most Note that these tablets have livestock provisions. In fact, it is possible to understand the type of livelihood of the Sush community in the Proto Elamite period from reading the tables, which is that the people of Sush were cattle breeders in the north of the hill and farmers in the south of the hill. The tablets obtained, which are mentioned in the research proposal, how to discover and decipher them, are very effective in achieving the goal of this research.
Proto Elamite inscriptions obtained from Susa
Proto Elamite inscriptions were first found in the excavations of Susa in 1900. (De Morgan, 1900: 130) Inscriptions are flattened clay fragments made by hand. They have formed. And are cooked at low heat or not cooked at all. In their study, the authors divided the Elamite inscriptions from Susa into two categories. One is the texts obtained from MDP.17, most of which were found from the north of Susa hill, and the other is the rest of the Susa inscriptions, which are generally obtained from the south of Susa hill. Demorgan’s large trench in MDP.6 had less than 10 percent of the animal texts But MDP.17 has the highest percentage of livestock statistics
Animal Texts of Susa
The content of all Elamite texts is administrative and related to the production, storage and distribution of the product (Dahl, 2015). In Proto Elamite texts, various signs are used for animals and livestock, but among them, only the sign of sheep and goat can be recognized with complete certainty due to the similarity with the example of the beginning of cuneiform can be distinguished from other animal signs. All livestock and domestic animal signs used in the herd are shown with abstract signs. Also, one of the most important factors related to livestock communities is the use of signs of livestock products.
Conclusion
Today, in the southwest of Iran, there are nomadic communities that have land in summer and winter, and apart from animal husbandry, whose main occupation is seasonal and rainfed agriculture, which does not meet the consumption of the whole year. And trade in livestock products and grains with the surrounding farming communities, and since the life of nomads depends on climate and environment, and since the end of the fourth millennium BC, major changes in water conditions and the weather in southwestern Iran has not happened. It is possible that the life of the nomads in Proto Elamite period was the same as now. By examining Proto Elamite tablets of Susa, it can be found that a significant part of them (nearly one third of the texts) are concepts related to wages, payment and in the field of livestock activity or collection and audit of livestock, and Attention is also regular with agricultural activity or payment of wages. By classifying the tablets and also according to the statistical concepts and percentages, it is determined that more than 32% of Proto Elamite texts obtained from Trench I of Domkenam in the north of the Acropolis hill are directly related to the counting and trading of livestock and may be part of the payment inscriptions whose goods Not specified, also related to livestock. According to Domkanem’s explanation, part of the inscriptions of the Great Trench of Damurgan is probably related to the texts of grain, storage and payment of labor wages, and at the time of publication, it was merged with a part of the tablets of the Great Trench in other Sush collections such as the book MDP.17 It has been reported that if they are separated, the number of livestock in the north of Shush Hill will probably reach a much higher number than %32. which in general can be understood the livelihood and life of the people of Susa in Proto Elamite period.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Special Archeology
Received: 2020/08/24 | Accepted: 2021/01/4 | Published: 2022/09/1
Received: 2020/08/24 | Accepted: 2021/01/4 | Published: 2022/09/1
References
1. - ارفعی، عبدالمجید، (1387). گلنبشتههای باروی تختجمشید. تهران: نشر مرکز دایرهالمعارف بزرگ اسلامی.
2. - آسکالونه، انریکو، (1394). باستانشناسی جوامع ایرانباستان (در هزارۀ سوم پیش از میلاد). ترجمۀ سیدمنصور سیدسجادی، تهران: سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب علومانسانی دانشگاهها (سمت).
3. - استوپلر، ماتیو ولفگانگ، (1389). تاریخ ایلام. ترجمۀ شهرام جلیلیان، تهران: نشر توس.
4. - افشاری، حسن، (1398). «قوم باستانشناسی نقش مهرهای شوش II». سخنرانی در همایش باستانشناسان جوان. دانشگاه تهران: دانشکده ادبیات (منتشرنشده).
5. - افشاری، حسن؛ و یوسفیزشک، روحالله، (1399). «بررسی تحلیلی پیدایش نگارش در ایران و بینالنهرین در اواخر هزارۀ چهارم پیشازمیلاد». فصلنامۀ مطالعات باستانشناسی پارسه، 4 (11): 72-49.
6. - آلدن، جان، (1390). «دورۀ شوش». باستانشناسی غرب ایران، زیرنظر فرانک هول، ترجمۀ زهرا باستی، تهران: نشر سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب علومانسانی دانشگاهها (سمت): 316-331.
7. - آمیه، پیر، (1393). «روابط ایران و بینالنهرین از 3500 تا 1600 پ.م.، بینالنهرین و ایران در دوران باستان». گزارش یادوارۀ ولادمیرلوکونین، ویراستۀ جان کرتیس، ترجمۀ زهرا باستی، تهران: نشر سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب علومانسانی دانشگاهها (سمت): 38-25.
8. - بدیعی، ربیع، (1367). جغرافیای مفصل ایران. تهران: نشر اقبال.
9. - بهارونداماناللهی، سکندر، (1360). کوچنشینی در ایران. تهران: بنگاه ترجمه و نشر کتاب.
10. - پاتس، دنیل. تی، (1396). باستانشناسی ایلام. ترجمۀ زهرا باستی، تهران: نشر سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب علومانسانی دانشگاهها (سمت).
11. - حصاری، مرتضی، (1392). شکلگیری و توسعۀ آغازنگارش در ایران (از پیشنگارش تا آغازایلامی). تهران: نشر سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب علومانسانی دانشگاهها (سمت).
12. - دال، یاکوب، (1399). نگارش آغازایلامی در ایران. ترجمۀ سپیده جمشیدییگانه و محسن فرجی، تهران: نشر آریارمنا.
13. - رایت، هنری، (1390). «پسکرانههای شوشان در دوران شکلگیری حکومتهای نخستین». باستانشناسی غرب ایران، زیر نظر: فرانک هول، ترجمۀ زهرا باستی، تهران: نشر سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب علومانسانی دانشگاهها (سمت): 285- 309.
14. - رایت، هنری، (1392). «لایهنگاری تطبیقی خوزستان هزارۀ چهارم ق.م.، شوش و جنوبغربی ایران». زیر نظر: ژان پرو و ژنو دلفوس، ترجمۀ هایده اقبال، گزارش گردهمایی بینالمللی شوش، تهران: نشر مرکز نشر دانشگاهی: 116-113.
15. - رزاقی، ابراهیم، (1367). اقتصاد ایران. تهران: نشر نی.
16. - سازمان نیروهای مسلح، (1385). فرهنگ جغرافیایی آبادیهای کشور، استان خوزستان. جلد دوم، تهران: نشر سازمان نیروهای مسلح.
17. - شهبازی، عبدالله، ( 1366). مقدمهای بر شناخت ایلات و عشایر. تهران: نشر نی.
18. - صفینژاد، جواد، (1368). «ساخت سنتی در عشایر ایران». نامۀ علوماجتماعی، 3: 98-67.
19. - عزیزیخرانقی، محمدحسین؛ ماساشی، جمشیدییگانه، سپیده، آبه؛ و اکبری، افشین، (1399). «پروژه باستانشناسی پیشازتاریخ شرق ایران، نخستین فصل کاوش در محوطۀ کلهکوب آیسک، استان خراسان جنوبی، (1397)»، فصلنامۀ مطالعات باستانشناسی پارسه، ۴ (۱۲): ۴۸-۲۹
20. - عقیلینیاکی، شیرین، (1390). «اسناد محاسباتی مرتبط با فن مدیریت اقتصادی در قلیدرویش I». باستانشناسی و تاریخ قم، قم: نشر اداره کل میراثفرهنگی، صنایعدستی و گردشگری استان قم.
21. - علیزاده، عباس، (1371). «بازتاب نقش جغرافیایی، زیستمحیطی و اقتصادی در تحولات جنوبباختری ایران ( از پیشازتاریخ تا اسلام)». مجلۀ اثر، 21: 42-29.
22. - علیزاده، عباس، (1387). شکلگیری حکومت عشایری و کوهستانی ایلام باستان. شهرکرد: انتشارات اداره کل میراثفرهنگی، صنایعدستی و گردشگری استان چهارمحال بختیاری.
23. - علیزاده، عباس، (1397). «کوچنشینان گلهدار کشاورز». نشریۀ گیلگمش، تابستان: 91-80.
24. - کرتیس، جان، (1393). «بینالنهرین و ایران در دوران باستان». گزارش از سمینار یادواره ولادمیر لوکونین، ویراستۀ جان کرتیس، ترجمۀ زهرا باستی، تهران: انتشارات سمت: 1 مقدمه.
25. - مجیدزاده، یوسف، (1389). کاوشهای محوطۀ باستانی ازبکی. جلد اول: هنر و معماری، تهران: نشر اداره کل میراثفرهنگی، صنایعدستی و گردشگری استان تهران.
26. - مشیری، سیدرحیم، (1372). جغرافیای کوچنشینی (مبانی و ایران). تهران: سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب درسی .
27. - نگهبان، عزتالله، (1390). شوش یا کهنترین مرکز شهرنشینی جهان. تهران: نشر سازمان میراثفرهنگی و صنایعدستی و گردشگری.
28. - هینتس، والتر، (1387). شهریاری ایلام. ترجمۀ پرویز رجبی، تهران: نشر ماهی.
29. - والا، فرانسوا، (1373). «شوش و ایلام». ترجمۀ آ همپارتیان، نشریۀ میراث فرهنگی، 12: 250-265.
30. - یوسفیزشک، روحالله؛ میری، جواد؛ و باقیزاده، سعید، (1391). «نگاهی تاریخی به سبک زندگی ایرانیان: ساختار جامعۀ عشایری ایران از دوران باستان تا عصرحاضر». فصلنامۀ مطالعات سبک زندگی، 1 (2): 34-9.
32. - Adams, R. McC., (1962). “Agricalture and Urban life in Early South western Iran”. Science, 136: 109-122.
33. - Adams, R. McC., (1966). The evolution of urban society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34. - Afshari, H., (2019). “Archaeological folklore The role of the seals of Susa II”. Conference of javan Archaeologists, University of Tehran (in Persian).
35. - Afshari, H. & Yousefi Zashk, R., (2020). “Analytical study of the origin of writing in Iran and Mesopotamia in the late fourth millennium BC”. Journal of Parseh Archaeological Studies, 4 (1): 72-49 (in Persian).
36. - Aghili Niaki, Sh., (2011). Archeology and history of Qom, written by Sarlak, Siamak, computational documents related to economic management in Qoli Darvish. I Qom: Publication of the General Directorate of Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism of Qom Province.(in Persian)
37. - Alden, J., (2011). “Susa Archaeological Period”. Western Iran. under the supervision of Frank Hull. Translated by Zahra Basti, Tehran: Samat Publishing: 316-331 (in Persian)
38. - Alden, J., (2013). “The Kur River Bashin in the Late 4th and 3th Millennia BC,Settlement,and Socio-Political Organization”. in: Petrie. Cameron A, Acient Iran and its Neighbours:Local developments and long-range interaction in the fourth millennium BC, Publisher: Oxbow Books, Oxford, UK: 207-232.
39. - Alizadeh, A., (1992). “Reflecting the geographical, environmental and economic role in the developments of south-western Iran (from pre-history to Islam)”. Journal of Art, 21: 29-42 (in Persian)
40. - Alizadeh, A., (2008). Formation of nomadic and mountainous government of ancient Ilam. Publications of the Sazeman, Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism of Chaharmahal Bakhtiari Orovince. (in Persian)
41. - Alizadeh, A., (2009). Prehistoric mobile pastoralists in south- centeral and southwestern Iran. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
42. - Alizadeh, A.; Ahmadzadeh, L. & Omidfar M., (2014). Ancient Settlement Systems and Cultures in the Ram Hormuz Plain, Southwestern Iran. Excavations at Tall-e Geser and Regional Surveys of the Ram Hormuz Area. Oriental Institute Publications 140.
43. - Alizadeh, A., (2018). “Herding nomadic farmers”. Gilgamesh Magazine, Summer 1397: 80-91 (in Persian).
44. - Amiet, P.; Tosi, M. & Meriggi, P., (1978). “Phase 10 at Shahr-i Sokhta: Excavations in Square XDV and the Late 4th Millennium B.C. Assemblage of Sīstān”. East and West, 28 (1/4) (December 1): 9-31.
45. - Amiet, P., (2014). “Relations between Iran and Mesopotamia from 3500 to 1600 BC, Mesopotamia and Iran in ancient times”. Report of the seminar on Vladimir Lukunin, edited by: John Curtis, translated by Zahra Basti, Tehran: Samat Publishing: 25-38 (in Persian)
46. - Arfai, A., (1387). Persepolis Fortress Inscriptions. Tehran: Markaz Publishing, Great Islamic Encyclopedia (in Persian)
47. - Askalone, E., (1394). Archeology of ancient Iranian societies (in the third millennium BC). Translated by: Dr. Seyed Mansour Seyed Sajjadi, Organization for the Study and Compilation of University Humanities Books (Samt), (in Persian)
48. - Azizi Kharanaghi, M. H.; Jamshidi Yeganeh, S.: Abe, M. & Akbari A., (2020), “New Evidence of Beveled Rim Bowls from Kale Kub, South Khorasan Province”. Parseh J. Archaeol Stud., 4 (12): 29-48 (in Persian)
49. - Badiee, R., (1988). Detailed Geography of Iran. Tehran: Iqbal Publishing (in Persian)
50. - Baharvand Amanollahi, A., (1981). Nomadism in Iran. Tehran: Book Translation and Publishing Company, (in Persian).
51. - Carter, E. & Stolper, M., (1984). Elam: Surveys of Political History and Archaeology. University of California Publications, Near Eastern Studies 25, Berkelely and Los Angeles: Univertsity of California Press.
52. - Dahl, J. L., (2005). Animal Husbandry in Susa during the Proto-Elamite Period. SMEA 47 (2005) 81-134. Dahl, J. L, 2012, The Marks of Early Writing. Iran, L, 1-16.4.
53. - Dahl, J. L., Petrie, C. A. & Potts, Daniel, T., ( 2013). “Chronological Parameters of the Earliest Writing System in Iran”. In: Cameron A. Petrie, ed., Ancient Iran and Its Neighbours: Local Developments and Long-range Interactions in the 4th Millennium B.C., Oxford: Oxbow Books: 353-378.
54. - Dahl, J. L.; Petrie, C. A. & Potts, D. T., ( 2013). “Chronological Parameters of the Earliest Writing System in Iran”. In: Cameron A. Petrie, ed., Ancient Iran and Its Neighbours: Local Developments and Long-range Interactions in the 4th Millennium B.C., Oxford: Oxbow Books: 353-378.
55. - Dahl, J., (2015). The production and storage, of food in Early Iran. Published in Original in, XXXVII/2015 Rivista annuale del Dipartmento di Science dell" Antichita-("Sapienza"…) Origin. XXXVII-2015 Book 9.
56. - Dahl, J., (2019). The writing of Proto Elamite. Translator: Seyed Jamshidi Yeganeh and Mohsen Farji, Publisher: Aryamnesh.
57. - Damerow, P. & Englund, R. K., (1989). The Proto-Elamite Texts from Tepe Yahya. The American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 39; Cambridge, M. A.
58. - De Morgan, J., (1900). Recherches archéologie. Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse 1; Paris.
59. - Desset, F., (2016). “Proto-Elamite Writing in Iran”. ARCH'O-NIL, 26 (June 2016): 67-105.
60. - Englund, R. K., (2004). “The State of Decipherment of Proto-Elamite”. in: Stephen Houston, ed. The First Writing: Script Invention as History and Process. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press: 100-149.
61. - Friberg, J., (1978-79). The Thrid Millennnium Roots of Babylonian Mathematics. I-II, University of Goteborg, Department of Mathematic, Goteborg.
62. - Girshman, R., (1938). Fouilles de Sialk. Volume I. Paris: Guenther.
63. - Hawkins, L. F., ( 2015). “A New Edition of the Proto-Elamite Text MDP 17, 112”. Cuneiform Digital Library Journal, 2015:1 Jacobsen, Thorkild, 1939, The Sumerian King List, Chicago: Oriental Institute.
64. - Hessari, M., (2013). Formation and development of the beginning of writing in Iran (from pre-writing to the beginning of Elamite). Tehran: Publication of the Organization for the Study and Compilation of University Humanities Books (Samt), (in Persian).
65. - Hintz, W., (2008). Shahriari of Ilam. Translated by: Parviz Rajabi, Tehran: Mahi Publishing (in Persian).
66. - Hole, F., (1994). “Environmental Instabilities and Urban Origins”. In: Chiefdom and Early States in the Near East”. edited by: G.Stein and M. S. Rothman, Madison: Prehistort Press: 52-121.
67. - Hole, F., (2009). Pastoral mobility as an adaptation. Nomads, Tribes, and the State in the Ancient Near East: Cross-disciplinary Perspectives. Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago.
68. - Jacobsen, T., (1939). The Sumerian King List. (Assyriological Studies 11.) Chicago.
69. - Johnson, G., (1973). “Local Exchang and Early state Development in Southwestern Iran”. Anthropological Papers, 51, Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology.
70. - Kirkby, M,. (1977). “Land and Water Resources of the Deh Luran and Khuzistan Plain”. in: F. Hole, ed., Studies in the Archaeological History of the Deh Luran Plain, Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology 9, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1977: 251-88.
71. - Kurtis, J., (2014). Introduction, Mesopotamia and Iran in ancient times. Report from the seminar of Vladimir Lukonin Wall. edited by: John Curtis, Translated by: Zahra Bastani, Tehran: Samat Publishing (in Persian)
72. - Le Brun, A. & Vallat, F., (1987). “L'origine de l'ecriture a Suse”. Cahiers de la Delegation Acheologique Francaise en Iran, 8: 11-52.
73. - Majidzadeh, Y.f (2010). Uzbek ancient site excavations. Volume One: Art and Architecture. Tehran: Publication of the General Directorate of Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism of Tehran Province (in Persian)
74. - Mushiri, S. R., (1993). Geography of nomadism (basics and Iran). Tehran: Organization for the Study and Compilation of Textbooks.(in Persian)
75. - Negahban, E., (2011). Susa or the oldest urban center in the world. Tehran: Publication of Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism Organization (in Persian)
76. - Pittman, H., (2013). “Imagery in administrative context: Susiana and the west in the fourth millennium B.C.”. In: Petrie, C.A. (Ed.), Iran and Its Neighbours: Local Developments and Long-range Interactions in the 4th Millennium BC. British Institute of Persian Studies Archaeological Monographs, Oxbow, Oxford: 293–336.
77. - Potts, D. T., (2016). Archeology of Ilam. Translated by: Zahra Basti, Tehran: Samit Publishing (in Persian)
78. - Razaghi, E., (1988). Iran's economy. Tehran: Ney Publishing (in Persian)
79. - Safinejad, J., (1989). “Traditional construction in Iranian nomads”. Social Science Letter, c. First, third issue, University of Tehran: 67-98 (in Persian)
80. - Armed Forces Organization, (2006). Geographical culture of the villages of the country, Khuzestan province. Volume II, Tehran: Armed Forces Organization Publication (in Persian)
81. - Shahbazi, A., (1987). An introduction to the knowledge of tribes and nomads. Tehran: Ney Publishing (in Persian)
82. - Scheil, V., (1905). “Documents archaïques en écriture proto-élamite”. Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse, 6: 57-128 (MDP 6), Paris.
83. - Scheil, V., (1935). “Texte de comptabilité”. Mémoires de la Mission Archaéologique en Perse, 26, Paris.
84. - Stapler, M. W., (2010). History of Ilam. Translated by: Shahram Jalilian, Tehran: Toos Publishing( in Persian).
85. - Sumner, W., (1974). “Excavations at Tall-i Malyan, 1971-72”. Iran, 12 (January 1): 155-180.
86. - Vallat, F., (1971). “Les documents epigraphiques de I’acropole (1969-1971)”. In: Cahiers de la Delegation Archeologique Francise en Iran 1, Paris, Geuthner: 235-245.
87. - Vallat, F., (1973). “Les Tablettes Proto-Elamites de I'Acropole (Campagne 1972)”.Cahiers de la delegation archeologique francaise en Iran, III: 93-105.
88. - Vallat, F., (1978). “Le materiel epigraphique des couches 18a14 de I'Acropole”.Paleorient, 4(1): 193-195.
89. - Vallat, F., (1986). “The most acient scripts of Iran”. in: The current situation. World archaeology, Early writing systems (Feb), 17 (3): 335-347.
90. - Wright, H., (1390). “Shoshan Peskranehs during the formation of the first governments”. Archeology of Western Iran, under the Supervision of Frank Holl, translated by: Zahra Basti, Tehran: Sammit Publishing: 285-309 (in Persian)
91. - Wright, H., (2012). “Comparative stratigraphy of Khuzestan, 4th millennium BC, Susa and southwestern Iran”. History and Archaeology, under the supervision of: Jean Perrault and Geneva Delphos, translated by: Heideh Iqbal, Report of Susa International Conference, Tehran: University Publishing Center: 113-116 (in Persian).
92. - Yousefi Zashk, R.; Miri, J. & Baghizadeh, S., (2012). “A Historical Look at the Iranian Lifestyle: The Structure of the Nomadic Society of Iran from Ancient Times to the Present Age”. Quarterly Journal of Lifestyle Studies, 1 (2): 9-34 (in Persian).
93. - Yousefi Zoshk, R.; Baghizadeh, S. & Etemadifar, D., ( 2019). “The gender division of labour during the proto-Elamite period in late 4th millennium BCE Iran. A case study from Tepe Sofalin in Iranian Central Plateau”. In: Julia Katharina Koch & Wiebke Kirleis (eds.), Gender Transformations in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies: 423-434. Leiden: Sidestone Press.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |