year 5, Issue 15 (6-2021)
Parseh J Archaeol Stud 2021, 5(15): 7-30 |
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:
Rashidian E. (2021). Geoarchaeological Investigations in Southwestern Iran; A Case-study for the Human-Environment Interaction in the Riverine Landscape of Greater Susiana During the Fifth to Second Millennium BCE. Parseh J Archaeol Stud. 5(15), 7-30. doi:10.30699/PJAS.5.15.7
URL: http://journal.richt.ir/mbp/article-1-446-en.html
URL: http://journal.richt.ir/mbp/article-1-446-en.html
Ph.D. in Archaeology, Research fellow, Konstanz University, Germany. , elnaz.rashidian@gmail.com
Abstract: (5372 Views)
Abstract
This paper presents a summary of a recently conducted geoarchaeological survey in the Susiana plains in southwest Iran. Here, the question of subsequent interaction of human settlements and their riverine landscape of the Greater Susiana region (roughly equivalent to modern Khuzestan) in the Later Village and the Early-historical periods (~ fifth to second millennium BCE) has been chosen as a case study. This study challenges the idea of the cultural expansion from South-Mesopotamia and its direct socio-political involvement in the spatial evolution patterns in Susiana in this timespan. It also offers an alternative interpretation: the riverine landscape and its spatial interaction with the settlement system. It has been suggested that the Later village settlements of Susiana were greatly influenced by the physical changes of the riverine landscape in their spatial development. This paper examines this hypothesis via geoarchaeological methods from the macro-level such as remote sensing to micro-level such as laboratory analysis of sediment logs to address this issue. The results of this study confirm three main points: (i) the westward migration of active watercourses in the mentioned time span; (ii) the direct correlation of this event with the spatial evolution of the studied settlements; and (iii) the overall differences between the neighboring plains of Susiana and south Mesopotamia in their geomorphological response to their fluvial evolution.
Keywords: Geoarchaeology, Greater Susiana, Riverine Landscape, Later Village Period, Early History, Settlement Patterns.
Introduction
Geoarchaeology has established itself as a decisive means to study the human-environment-interaction in recent years. The use of geo-sciences in archaeology has revived the archaeological discourse regarding entanglement and niche construction theory, especially in the Near Eastern Archaeology. Yet, the Iranian archaeology lags behind in this matter. This paper contributes to this issue and aims to demonstrate the huge potential of geoarchaeological investigations in the Iranian archaeology.
The Susiana plains are an archaeologically rich region and suitable to examine the human-environment interaction in pre- and early history. The author has carried out a geoarchaeological survey in 2014 in this region to address this issue. The analyzed results have been published in detail (Rashidian 2020) and are briefly presented here.
Archaeological evidence of this region indicates a spatial change in the settlement patterns in the mentioned periods, including the abandonment of central settlements in the eastern plains and foundation of new settlements in the western plains (Adams 1962; Johnson 1973; Moghaddam 2012a). The common interpretation of this phenomenon related this spatial change to a socio-cultural or even political force from the South-Mesopotamian center, especially during the end of Ubaid and the beginning of the Uruk periods (Algaze 2005; 2008). This hypothesis has been discussed within the framework of the world-systems and criticized for decades, especially due to recent archaeological projects from modern Syria and neighboring regions. By integrating geoarchaeological investigations, these studies have shown that the spatial evolution of the settlements in the so-called periphery regions has been endogenic and not imported from Mesopotamia (McMahon & Crawford 2010; Ur et al. 2007). They have also offered alternative hypotheses for this phenomenon. Yet, for the Susiana region, this has remained the common hypothesis, despite occasional critic and speculation (Alizadeh et al. 2004; Moghaddam 2012a).
This has been the main focus of the present study, which examines two aspects: (i) There are strong indications of a westwards-migration of palaeo-rivers in the Mid-Holocene period, as mentioned by others (Kouchoukos 1999; Lees & Falcon 1952). (ii) In addition to a shift in watercourses and riverbed, such a fluvial change would affect the entire landscape immensely, for example, by changes in the surface slope, sediment freight, and soil characteristics. This probable landscape shift shall be comprehended in focusing on ten archaeologically known settlements (Abu Fanduweh, Abu Chizan, Band-e Qir, Chogha Mish, Dar Khazineh, Dehno, Haft Tappeh, Samirat, Sanjar, Sharafabad) in respect to the watercourses Dez, Karkheh, Karun, and their tributaries. During the here presented geoarchaeological survey, hundreds of soil profiles, as well as fifty-one subsurface cores, have been documented in the environ of these settlements in the riverine landscape.
Discussion
The sedimentological laboratory analysis of the documented horizons (surface and sub-surface) confirmed the large-scale migration of the rivers towards the west of the plain, which correlates with the spatial shift in the studied settlements, both in macro- and micro-level (in the region and within the settlements themselves).
Furthermore, it was shown that not the large rivers, but the smaller rivulets had been the source of water for these settlements, despite prior speculation. Following the westwards fluvial migration, these rivulets have been cut off the hydrologic regime of the region and largely covered by recent sediments in the third and second millennium BCE. A number of them have been revived and integrated into the new canal network in the Early historical and Late Antiquity. Relative and absolute dating, based on material culture in situ and optically stimulated luminescence of sand in bulk samples respectively, have provided a dating framework for the presented geodata.
In general terms, focusing on geomorphological elements of the landscape such as slope, soil characteristics, and sedimentary regime has proved beneficial to examine the spatial evolution of prehistoric settlements. Susiana as a dynamic landscape has changed considerably in response to the fluvial regime change and extensive human impact. This has been attested in the presented geodata in this period. An intensification of the mentioned event is also confirmed for the later period, where the human impact has largely escalated due to centralized and planned developments of well established political entities From the Neo-Elamite to the Sasanian period.
Conclusion
This study provided a range of results concerning the hypothesis and the relevant settlements. Three main points are summarized here:
(i) The westward migration of Susiana’s active watercourses during the fifth to second millennium BCE has been confirmed using a combination of remote sensing, sedimentary analysis of cores, laboratory analysis of sediment horizons, and methods of indirect and absolute dating.
(ii) A correlation in spatial evolution of settlement patterns with this fluvial development has been confirmed, based on available archaeological record of the ten mentioned settlements. This spatial correlation is attested both in macro- and micro-level. In this regard, a general tendency of settlements towards the western parts of the plain can be confirmed for this timespan. Furthermore, this has been attested in the spatial evolution within the settlements and it seems that some were following their migrating watercourses, and others have been abandoned entirely.
(iii) The results of this analysis also show the stark difference between the flat landscape of South-Mesopotamia with its large riverbeds as primary geo-elements in the west, and the softly sloped landscape of Susiana with its numerous rivulets and narrow floodplains surrounded by ridges and anticlines in the east. It is safe to assume that these starkly different landscapes have brought about equally different settlement patterns. Therefore, the settlement evolution of Susiana must be considered endogenic and studied in the framework of its landscape.
A detailed account of the presented study has been recently published (Rashidian 2020). A few case studies are also subject of English papers (Rashidian 2017; 2018; in press). The author hopes that this summary in Persian can contribute to the present discourse and encourage active members of the Iranian Archaeology to integrate geoarchaeological investigations into their projects. This is the only way towards further establishing an internationally acclaimed place for the Iranian archaeology.
This paper presents a summary of a recently conducted geoarchaeological survey in the Susiana plains in southwest Iran. Here, the question of subsequent interaction of human settlements and their riverine landscape of the Greater Susiana region (roughly equivalent to modern Khuzestan) in the Later Village and the Early-historical periods (~ fifth to second millennium BCE) has been chosen as a case study. This study challenges the idea of the cultural expansion from South-Mesopotamia and its direct socio-political involvement in the spatial evolution patterns in Susiana in this timespan. It also offers an alternative interpretation: the riverine landscape and its spatial interaction with the settlement system. It has been suggested that the Later village settlements of Susiana were greatly influenced by the physical changes of the riverine landscape in their spatial development. This paper examines this hypothesis via geoarchaeological methods from the macro-level such as remote sensing to micro-level such as laboratory analysis of sediment logs to address this issue. The results of this study confirm three main points: (i) the westward migration of active watercourses in the mentioned time span; (ii) the direct correlation of this event with the spatial evolution of the studied settlements; and (iii) the overall differences between the neighboring plains of Susiana and south Mesopotamia in their geomorphological response to their fluvial evolution.
Keywords: Geoarchaeology, Greater Susiana, Riverine Landscape, Later Village Period, Early History, Settlement Patterns.
Introduction
Geoarchaeology has established itself as a decisive means to study the human-environment-interaction in recent years. The use of geo-sciences in archaeology has revived the archaeological discourse regarding entanglement and niche construction theory, especially in the Near Eastern Archaeology. Yet, the Iranian archaeology lags behind in this matter. This paper contributes to this issue and aims to demonstrate the huge potential of geoarchaeological investigations in the Iranian archaeology.
The Susiana plains are an archaeologically rich region and suitable to examine the human-environment interaction in pre- and early history. The author has carried out a geoarchaeological survey in 2014 in this region to address this issue. The analyzed results have been published in detail (Rashidian 2020) and are briefly presented here.
Archaeological evidence of this region indicates a spatial change in the settlement patterns in the mentioned periods, including the abandonment of central settlements in the eastern plains and foundation of new settlements in the western plains (Adams 1962; Johnson 1973; Moghaddam 2012a). The common interpretation of this phenomenon related this spatial change to a socio-cultural or even political force from the South-Mesopotamian center, especially during the end of Ubaid and the beginning of the Uruk periods (Algaze 2005; 2008). This hypothesis has been discussed within the framework of the world-systems and criticized for decades, especially due to recent archaeological projects from modern Syria and neighboring regions. By integrating geoarchaeological investigations, these studies have shown that the spatial evolution of the settlements in the so-called periphery regions has been endogenic and not imported from Mesopotamia (McMahon & Crawford 2010; Ur et al. 2007). They have also offered alternative hypotheses for this phenomenon. Yet, for the Susiana region, this has remained the common hypothesis, despite occasional critic and speculation (Alizadeh et al. 2004; Moghaddam 2012a).
This has been the main focus of the present study, which examines two aspects: (i) There are strong indications of a westwards-migration of palaeo-rivers in the Mid-Holocene period, as mentioned by others (Kouchoukos 1999; Lees & Falcon 1952). (ii) In addition to a shift in watercourses and riverbed, such a fluvial change would affect the entire landscape immensely, for example, by changes in the surface slope, sediment freight, and soil characteristics. This probable landscape shift shall be comprehended in focusing on ten archaeologically known settlements (Abu Fanduweh, Abu Chizan, Band-e Qir, Chogha Mish, Dar Khazineh, Dehno, Haft Tappeh, Samirat, Sanjar, Sharafabad) in respect to the watercourses Dez, Karkheh, Karun, and their tributaries. During the here presented geoarchaeological survey, hundreds of soil profiles, as well as fifty-one subsurface cores, have been documented in the environ of these settlements in the riverine landscape.
Discussion
The sedimentological laboratory analysis of the documented horizons (surface and sub-surface) confirmed the large-scale migration of the rivers towards the west of the plain, which correlates with the spatial shift in the studied settlements, both in macro- and micro-level (in the region and within the settlements themselves).
Furthermore, it was shown that not the large rivers, but the smaller rivulets had been the source of water for these settlements, despite prior speculation. Following the westwards fluvial migration, these rivulets have been cut off the hydrologic regime of the region and largely covered by recent sediments in the third and second millennium BCE. A number of them have been revived and integrated into the new canal network in the Early historical and Late Antiquity. Relative and absolute dating, based on material culture in situ and optically stimulated luminescence of sand in bulk samples respectively, have provided a dating framework for the presented geodata.
In general terms, focusing on geomorphological elements of the landscape such as slope, soil characteristics, and sedimentary regime has proved beneficial to examine the spatial evolution of prehistoric settlements. Susiana as a dynamic landscape has changed considerably in response to the fluvial regime change and extensive human impact. This has been attested in the presented geodata in this period. An intensification of the mentioned event is also confirmed for the later period, where the human impact has largely escalated due to centralized and planned developments of well established political entities From the Neo-Elamite to the Sasanian period.
Conclusion
This study provided a range of results concerning the hypothesis and the relevant settlements. Three main points are summarized here:
(i) The westward migration of Susiana’s active watercourses during the fifth to second millennium BCE has been confirmed using a combination of remote sensing, sedimentary analysis of cores, laboratory analysis of sediment horizons, and methods of indirect and absolute dating.
(ii) A correlation in spatial evolution of settlement patterns with this fluvial development has been confirmed, based on available archaeological record of the ten mentioned settlements. This spatial correlation is attested both in macro- and micro-level. In this regard, a general tendency of settlements towards the western parts of the plain can be confirmed for this timespan. Furthermore, this has been attested in the spatial evolution within the settlements and it seems that some were following their migrating watercourses, and others have been abandoned entirely.
(iii) The results of this analysis also show the stark difference between the flat landscape of South-Mesopotamia with its large riverbeds as primary geo-elements in the west, and the softly sloped landscape of Susiana with its numerous rivulets and narrow floodplains surrounded by ridges and anticlines in the east. It is safe to assume that these starkly different landscapes have brought about equally different settlement patterns. Therefore, the settlement evolution of Susiana must be considered endogenic and studied in the framework of its landscape.
A detailed account of the presented study has been recently published (Rashidian 2020). A few case studies are also subject of English papers (Rashidian 2017; 2018; in press). The author hopes that this summary in Persian can contribute to the present discourse and encourage active members of the Iranian Archaeology to integrate geoarchaeological investigations into their projects. This is the only way towards further establishing an internationally acclaimed place for the Iranian archaeology.
Keywords: Geoarchaeology, Greater Susiana, Riverine Landscape, Later Village Period, Early History, Settlement Patterns.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Special Archeology
Received: 2020/11/8 | Accepted: 2021/03/7 | Published: 2021/04/30
Received: 2020/11/8 | Accepted: 2021/03/7 | Published: 2021/04/30
References
1. جعفری، عباس، (1368). گیتاشناسی ایران. جلد اول: کوهها و کوهپایههای ایران، تهران: مؤسسۀ گیتاشناسی ایران.
2. سرداریزارچی، علیرضا، (1393). «تپهسنجر: چشماندازی از یک استقرار طولانیمدت در دشت شوشان». در: مجموعه مقالات همایش بینالمللی باستانشناسان جوان. بهکوشش: محمدحسین عزیزیخرانقی؛ مرتضی خانیپور و رضا ناصری، تهران: دانشگاه تهران، صص: 186-169.
3. معتمد، رضا؛ صفاری، امیر؛ سرداریزارچی، علیرضا؛ و باجوروند، بیژن، (1395). «نقش فرآیندهای ژئومورفولوژیکی بر محوطۀ باستانی سنجر». فصلنامۀ جندیشاپور، شمارۀ 7، صص: 57-41.
4. Adams, R., (1962). “Agriculture and Urban Life in Early Southwestern Iran”. Science (New Series), No. 136/3511, Pp: 109–122.
5. Adams, R., (1981). Heartland of cities. Surveys of ancient settlement and land use on the central floodplain of the Euphrates. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6. Algaze, G., (2005). The Uruk world system: The dynamics of expansion of early Mesopotamian civilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (2nd edition (1995)).
7. Algaze, G., (2008). Ancient Mesopotamia at the Dawn of Civilization: The Evolution of an Urban Landscape. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8. Alizadeh, A., (1985). “Elymaean occupation of lower Khuzestan during the Selucid and Parthian periods: a proposal”. Iranica Anitiqua, No. 20, Pp: 175–195.
9. Alizadeh, A.; Kouchoukos, N.; Wilkinson, T. J.; Bauer, A.M. & Mashkour, M., (2004). “Human-Environment Interactions on the Upper Khuzestan Plains, Southwest Iran. Recent Investigations”. Paléorient, No. 30, Pp: 69–88.
10. Álvarez-Mon, J.; Basello, G. P. & Wicks, Y. (ed.)., (2018). The Elamite World. New York: Routledge.
11. De Morgan, J., (1895). Mission scientifique en Perse. Vol. 2: Études géographiques. Paris.
12. Dewan, M. L. & Famouri, J., (1964). The soils of Iran. Study conducted -1955-61- as a joint project with the Soil Dep. of Irrigation Bongah of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Plan Organization, and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome: FAO.
13. Dittmann, R., (1984). Eine Randebene des Zagros in der Frühzeit. Ergebnisse des Behbehan-Zuhreh Surveys. Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient, Bd. 3. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.
14. Ehlers, E., (1975). Traditionelle und moderne Formen der Landwirtschaft in Iran. Siedlung, Wirtschaft und Agrarsozialstruktur im nördlichen Khuzistan seit dem Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts. Marbur an der Lahn: Marburger Geographische Schriften Heft 64.
15. Fisher, W. B., (ed.). (1968). The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. 1: The Land of Iran. Vol. 1. 8 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge histories online.
16. Heyvaert, V. & Baeteman, C., (2007). “Holocene sedimentary evolution and palaeocoastlines of the Lower Khuzestan plain (southwest Iran)”. Marine Geology, No. 242, Pp: 83–108.
17. Heyvaert, V.; Walstra, J. & Verkinderen, P., (2010). “Reconstructing landscape evolution in the Lower Khuzestan plain (SW Iran): integrating imagery, historical and sedimentary archives”. In: Landscapes through the lens: aerial photographs and historic environment, by D. Cowley, Standring, A., Abicht, M. (eds.), Oxford and Oakvile: Oxbow Books, Pp: 111-128.
18. Hodder, I., (2012). Entangled: An archaeology of the relationships between humans and things. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
19. Hole, F., (ed.), (1987). The Archaeology of western Iran. Settlement and society from prehistory to the Islamic conquest. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian series in archaeological inquiry.
20. Jones, M.; Djamali, M.; Stevens, L.; Heyvaert, V.; Askari, H.; Noorollahi, D. & Weeks, L., (2013). “Mid Holocene environmental and climatic change in Iran”. In: Petrie, C. (ed.), Ancient Iran and its Neighbours. Local developments and long-range interactions in the fourth millennium BC, The British Institute of Persian Studies (Archaeological Monographs Series III). Oxford: Oxbow, Pp: 26–35.
21. Johnson, G. A., (1973). Local exchange and early state development in southwestern Iran, Anthropological papers no. 51. Ann Arbor: Oriental Institut Chicago Univ.
22. Kouchoukos, N., (1999). “Landscape and Social Change in late Prehistoric Mesopotamia”. PhD Thesis, Yale: Yale University.
23. Krikby, M., (1977). “Land and water resources of the Deh Luran and Khuzestan Plain”. In: Studies in the Archaeological History of the Deh Luran Plain: The Excavation of Chagha Sefid, by F. Hole (ed), Pp: 251–288. Ann Arbor: Univ. Chicago Press.
24. Laland, K. N., (2013). “Human Cultural Niche Construction and the social sciences”. In: B. Kaldis (eds.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Social Sciences, Los Angeles, Pp: 432–435.
25. Lees, G. & Falcon, N., (1952). “The Geographical History of the Mesopotamian Plains”. The Geographical Journal, No. 118/1, Pp: 24-39.
26. Loftus, W. K., (1857). Travels and Researches in Chaldea and Susiana. London.
27. McMahon, A. & Crawford, H., (eds), (2010). Preludes to Urbanism: The Late Chalcolithic of Mesopotamia, In Honour of Joan Oates, McDonald Institute Monographs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Moghaddam, A., (2012a). “A Note on the Gargar Irrigation System”. Iranian Journal of archaeological studies, No. 2, Pp: 37–49.
29. Moghaddam, A., (2012b). “Southwestern Iran (Ch. 27)”. In: A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, by D. (ed.) Potts, {p: 512–530. New York: Willey-Blackwell.
30. Moghaddam, A., (2016). “A fifth-millennium BC cemetery in the north Persian Gulf: The Zohreh Prehistoric Project”. Antiquity, No. 90, Pp: 1–6.
31. Moghaddam, A. & Miri, N., (2007). “Archaeological surveys in the “eastern corridor”, South-western Iran”. IRAN, No. 45, Pp: 23–55.
32. Neely, J. & Wright, H., (1994). Early Settlement and Irrigation on the Deh Luran Plain: Village and Early State Societies in Southwestern Iran. University of Michigan Press.
33. Petrie, C., (ed.), (2013). Ancient Iran and its Neighbours. Local developments and long-range interactions in the fourth millennium BC. The British Institute of Persian Studies (Archaeological Monographs Series III). Oxford: Oxbow.
34. Potts, D. (ed.), (2012). A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. New York: Blackwell.
35. Potts, D., 2016, (1999). The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State, revised. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36. Rashidian, E., (2017). “Settlement History of a Lost Niche: The Flourishing Past of A Modern Southwest Iranian Badland”. In: Archaeological Approaches to Breaking Boundaries: Interaction, Integration & Division. Proceedings of the Graduate Archaeology at Oxford Conferences 2015–2016, by R. O´Sullivon, C. Marini and J. Binnberg (eds.). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (BAR), Pp: 246-258.
37. Rashidian, E., (2018). “Dehno and its Environs. A Geoarchaeological Approach to the Elamite Urban Places”. Elamica, No. 8, Pp: 227-245.
38. Rashidian, E., (2020). Landschaftswandel und Siedlungsverschiebung; Siedlungsdynamik im Großraum Susiana vom 5. bis 2. Jahrtausend vor unserer Zeit. Berlin: J.B. Metzler (Springer Nature).
39. Schacht, R. M., (1975). “A Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Tepe Sharafabad, 1971”. Journal of field archaology, No. 2, Pp: 307–329.
40. Schacht, R. & Wright, H., (2010). “Sharafabad.” Encyclopedia Iranica, online edition.
41. Ur, J.; McMahon, A.; Karsgaard, P.; Al Quntar, H.; Oates, J., (2007). “Early Mesopotamian urbanism: a new view from the North”. Antiquity, No. 81/313, Pp: 585–600.
42. Veenenbos, J. S., (1958). Unified Report of the Soil and Land Classification of Dezful Project, Khuzistan, Iran. Tehran.
43. Wenke, R., (1975). “Imperial investments and agricultural developments in Parthian and Sassanian Khuzestan: 150 BC to AD 160”. Mesopotamia, No. 10‐11, Pp: 31–157.
44. Wilkinson, T., (2003). Archaeological landscapes of the Near East. Tucson : The Univ. Arizona Press.
45. Wilkinson, T., (2012) “Introduction to Geography, Climate, Topography, and Hydrology (Ch 1)”. In: A companion to the archaeology of the ancient Near East, D. Potts (ed.), New-York: Wiley-Blackwell, Pp: 3-26.
46. Woodbridge, K. P., (2013) “The influence of Earth surface movements and human activities on the River Karun in lowland south-west Iran”. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Kingston: University of Hull.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |