year 7, Issue 23 (5-2023)
Parseh J. Archaeol. Stud. 2023, 7(23): 161-182 |
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:
Ahmadipour A, Hesari M, Zehtabvar O. (2023). Studying the Economic Subsistence of Iron Age in Taghiabad Site based on Animal Findings. Parseh J. Archaeol. Stud.. 7(23), 161-182. doi:10.30699/PJAS.7.23.161
URL: http://journal.richt.ir/mbp/article-1-530-en.html
URL: http://journal.richt.ir/mbp/article-1-530-en.html
1- PhD Candidate, Department of Archaeology, Tehran Central Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2- Associate Professor, Prehistoric Archaeology Department, Research Institute of Cultural Heritage and Tourism, Tehran, Iran ,mhessari@yahoo.de
3- Assistant Professor, Department of Basic Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2- Associate Professor, Prehistoric Archaeology Department, Research Institute of Cultural Heritage and Tourism, Tehran, Iran ,
3- Assistant Professor, Department of Basic Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (2427 Views)
Abstract
In the summer of 2018, the archaeological excavation of Taghiabad Tepe land 2 was carried out in Varamin city. The areas are located in the north of Taghiabad village and in the south of Ajorbast village of Javadabad Varamin. The excavation findings include the Bronze Age and Iron Age cultural periods. Among the valuable findings of this site were animal remains, which are very important to understand the subsistence system of this site. The most important goal of this article is knowing the subsistence economic system among the society living in the Iron Age based on zooarchaeological studies in Tagh. The main question that is raised in this research is, how can the animal species be identified in this area and how can the bone remain of animals be used in the reconstruction of the livelihood of the studied period? On the bone findings of the Iron Age area of Taghiabad (1&2) the traces of burns and cuts can be seen on some bones, which may have been caused by butchering. The basis of this research is based on studies on animal finds that were obtained in the archaeological excavations of Taghiabad Tepe 1 and 2. The findings of the research show the use of sheep, goat, cattle, gazelle, deer, susscrofa, urial, canine and birds’ species in Taghiabad Tepe 2. The study showed that animal husbandry played an important role in the livelihood of the people of that area.
Keywords: Iron Age, Subsistence Economy, Varamin Plain, Zooarchaeological.
Introduction
Depiction of subsistence, environmental and other living conditions of ancient societies is one of the most important approaches in archaeology and anthropology which is considered a multidisciplinary approach that requires archaeologists, biologists and ecologist cooperation.
By using zooarchaeology theories and based on analysis on animal remaining, archaeologists try to understand the different aspects animal’s livings and depict the interaction between the man and animal.
Historically, zoologists only presented the recognizable species but recent studies on the remaining provide a more through insight. (Davis, 1987: 23)
Identifying the species their prevalence and sex could be of immense value in the strategy of selecting the animal for herding and use of their flash.
The main question in this study (Which is based on findings of Taghiabad site under supervision of Dr. Morteza Hessari in 2018 to identify the diet of residents in Taghiabad in Varamin Plain) is to scientifically identify the animal species and their role in meat provision. Moreover, if the residents were using domestic animals’ flesh or hunted animal and their ratio, if they were animal herders or farmers as well.
The most important goal of studying these remains is to reconstruct the animal-human behavior towards animals and his environment.
Based on these introductions, identifying the species and being whether domestic or wild is one of the goals of this study.
With this approach the prevalence and ratio of species in an area is another goal.
The first review revealed the animal species which helped to identify the subsistence strategies such as animal herding and hunting were identified.
Understanding the human-environment relationship, ecologic, specifications of studied society and other conditions such as environmental changes could be achieved by bone analysis. (O’Conner, 2018).
By studying the domestic animal bones, we could understand the herding methods and their goals of animal herding.
Taghiabad Site
This site is located in agriculture zone of Adjorbast village in Pishva town of Varamin district. This site is named as Taghiabad1 and Taghiabad2.
Animal Findings
In this study the animal remaining which were recovered through the first season of excavation in 2018, have been analyzed, which dates back to Iron Age (1&2). First of all, the bones have been prepared by numbering and locus allocation. Then the species and the organs were recognized by using animal bones manual and bank of animal bones.
Number of identified Specimens (NISP) Iron Age of Taghiabad 1
326 pieces of bones had been retrieved from Taghiabad1 related to Iron Age, 225 pieces related to Iron Age1 and 101 pieces related to Iron Age2 and 386 pieces belongs to Taghiabad2 (379 pieces related to Iron Age1 and 7 pieces from Iron Age2).
Species recognized in Taghiabad1 contains: sheep 114 pieces (71 pieces from Iron Age 1 and 43 pieces Iron Age2), goat 9 (6 Iron Age1 and 3 Iron Age2), gazelle 26 (19 pieces Iron Age1 and 7 Iron Age2), cattle 32 ( 19 pieces Iron Age1 and 13 Iron Age2), fox 1 piece related to Iron Age2, 8 pieces of canine from Iron Age1, small carnivorous 2 pieces from Iron Age2, equid 2 pieces from Iron Age2, equus 8 pieces (6 Iron Age1 and 2 pieces Iron Age2), sus scrofa 2pieces from Iron Age1, deer 1 piece from Iron Age1, 3 pieces of avian (1 from Iron Age1 and 2 Iron Age2), 1 piece of urial (Iron Age1) and 118 broken and non-recognizable pieces.
Number of identified Specimens (NISP) Iron Age of Taghiabad 2
63 pieces of sheep bones had been retrieved from Taghiabad2 related to Iron Age, 62 pieces related to Iron Age1 and 1 piece Iron Age2, goat 5 pieces (Iron Age1), gazelle 10 pieces (9 Iron Age1 and 1 Iron Age2), cattle 23 pieces (Iron Age1), canine 10 pieces (9 Iron Age1 and 1 Iron Age2), 1 piece of small carnivorous from Iron Age1, 2 pieces of equid from Iron Age1, 1 piece of equus from Iron Age2, 1 piece of equus asinus from Iron Age1, 11 pieces of sus scrofa from Iron Age1, I piece of deer from Iron Age1, 1 piece of avian from Iron Age1 and 257 broken and non-recognizable.
34%were sheep and 2% goat bones in Taghiabad1, while in Taghiabad2 16% were sheep and 1% were goat bones. The found items were jaw, teeth, scapula, pelvis, ribs and vertebra bones.
On some of the bones cut marks and burns were obvious. Cut marks are probably secondary to peeling and butchery process by a knife-like instrument. Abnormalities and bone reactions were seen on some items, most of them were adult to death.
Injuries which could be found on the bones are mostly manmade such as breaking the bones to have access to bone marrow, marks related to peeling process or cutting meat off the bones, burning marks secondary to cooking process and bite marks (Merritt, Sr 2016).
And the other injuries such as bite marks or signs of alimentation which caused by other animals.
17 pieces (11.8%) out of 144 goat and sheep bones and 3 (23%) out of 13 cattle bones were non adult I Iron Age1.
Most of the sheep and goats were adult at death which means they were exploited not only for primary product (meat) but also secondary products (milk, wool, breeding…). One of the advantages of goats is their reproductivity which makes their milk accessible. Cattles were being exploited not only for primary and secondary products but also for daily labor as transportation and plowing but duo to scarcity of their bones it could not be a precise finding.
Conclusion
By identifying the species from finding of Taghiabad, we could understand the strategies of subsistence such as herding and hunting and interactions among human- animals environment, which shows the important role of herding. The main sources of meat supply in Taghiabad site during Iron Age were sheep, goat and cattle (46.8%), sheep was the most found one then cattle and goat respectively. The reason for prevalence of cattle is its role in secondary products supply and its role in labor and transportation which is reflected in deformities on their bones. Equid, like cattle, were being used for labor and riding as well, most of them were adult at death which amplifies their role as secondary product supply source.
The most hunted animal were gazelles and sus scrofa (8.2% in Taghiabad1 and 5.59% in Taghiabad2). Comparison of findings from other sites of central Iran shows the equal importance of sheep and cattle herding among all of them in all Ages. Sheep was always more than goats. Study of the sus scrofa’s bones showed that except one sample, all the others were wild animals. Finally, we must emphasis that more precise results, require as more precise studies.
In the summer of 2018, the archaeological excavation of Taghiabad Tepe land 2 was carried out in Varamin city. The areas are located in the north of Taghiabad village and in the south of Ajorbast village of Javadabad Varamin. The excavation findings include the Bronze Age and Iron Age cultural periods. Among the valuable findings of this site were animal remains, which are very important to understand the subsistence system of this site. The most important goal of this article is knowing the subsistence economic system among the society living in the Iron Age based on zooarchaeological studies in Tagh. The main question that is raised in this research is, how can the animal species be identified in this area and how can the bone remain of animals be used in the reconstruction of the livelihood of the studied period? On the bone findings of the Iron Age area of Taghiabad (1&2) the traces of burns and cuts can be seen on some bones, which may have been caused by butchering. The basis of this research is based on studies on animal finds that were obtained in the archaeological excavations of Taghiabad Tepe 1 and 2. The findings of the research show the use of sheep, goat, cattle, gazelle, deer, susscrofa, urial, canine and birds’ species in Taghiabad Tepe 2. The study showed that animal husbandry played an important role in the livelihood of the people of that area.
Keywords: Iron Age, Subsistence Economy, Varamin Plain, Zooarchaeological.
Introduction
Depiction of subsistence, environmental and other living conditions of ancient societies is one of the most important approaches in archaeology and anthropology which is considered a multidisciplinary approach that requires archaeologists, biologists and ecologist cooperation.
By using zooarchaeology theories and based on analysis on animal remaining, archaeologists try to understand the different aspects animal’s livings and depict the interaction between the man and animal.
Historically, zoologists only presented the recognizable species but recent studies on the remaining provide a more through insight. (Davis, 1987: 23)
Identifying the species their prevalence and sex could be of immense value in the strategy of selecting the animal for herding and use of their flash.
The main question in this study (Which is based on findings of Taghiabad site under supervision of Dr. Morteza Hessari in 2018 to identify the diet of residents in Taghiabad in Varamin Plain) is to scientifically identify the animal species and their role in meat provision. Moreover, if the residents were using domestic animals’ flesh or hunted animal and their ratio, if they were animal herders or farmers as well.
The most important goal of studying these remains is to reconstruct the animal-human behavior towards animals and his environment.
Based on these introductions, identifying the species and being whether domestic or wild is one of the goals of this study.
With this approach the prevalence and ratio of species in an area is another goal.
The first review revealed the animal species which helped to identify the subsistence strategies such as animal herding and hunting were identified.
Understanding the human-environment relationship, ecologic, specifications of studied society and other conditions such as environmental changes could be achieved by bone analysis. (O’Conner, 2018).
By studying the domestic animal bones, we could understand the herding methods and their goals of animal herding.
Taghiabad Site
This site is located in agriculture zone of Adjorbast village in Pishva town of Varamin district. This site is named as Taghiabad1 and Taghiabad2.
Animal Findings
In this study the animal remaining which were recovered through the first season of excavation in 2018, have been analyzed, which dates back to Iron Age (1&2). First of all, the bones have been prepared by numbering and locus allocation. Then the species and the organs were recognized by using animal bones manual and bank of animal bones.
Number of identified Specimens (NISP) Iron Age of Taghiabad 1
326 pieces of bones had been retrieved from Taghiabad1 related to Iron Age, 225 pieces related to Iron Age1 and 101 pieces related to Iron Age2 and 386 pieces belongs to Taghiabad2 (379 pieces related to Iron Age1 and 7 pieces from Iron Age2).
Species recognized in Taghiabad1 contains: sheep 114 pieces (71 pieces from Iron Age 1 and 43 pieces Iron Age2), goat 9 (6 Iron Age1 and 3 Iron Age2), gazelle 26 (19 pieces Iron Age1 and 7 Iron Age2), cattle 32 ( 19 pieces Iron Age1 and 13 Iron Age2), fox 1 piece related to Iron Age2, 8 pieces of canine from Iron Age1, small carnivorous 2 pieces from Iron Age2, equid 2 pieces from Iron Age2, equus 8 pieces (6 Iron Age1 and 2 pieces Iron Age2), sus scrofa 2pieces from Iron Age1, deer 1 piece from Iron Age1, 3 pieces of avian (1 from Iron Age1 and 2 Iron Age2), 1 piece of urial (Iron Age1) and 118 broken and non-recognizable pieces.
Number of identified Specimens (NISP) Iron Age of Taghiabad 2
63 pieces of sheep bones had been retrieved from Taghiabad2 related to Iron Age, 62 pieces related to Iron Age1 and 1 piece Iron Age2, goat 5 pieces (Iron Age1), gazelle 10 pieces (9 Iron Age1 and 1 Iron Age2), cattle 23 pieces (Iron Age1), canine 10 pieces (9 Iron Age1 and 1 Iron Age2), 1 piece of small carnivorous from Iron Age1, 2 pieces of equid from Iron Age1, 1 piece of equus from Iron Age2, 1 piece of equus asinus from Iron Age1, 11 pieces of sus scrofa from Iron Age1, I piece of deer from Iron Age1, 1 piece of avian from Iron Age1 and 257 broken and non-recognizable.
34%were sheep and 2% goat bones in Taghiabad1, while in Taghiabad2 16% were sheep and 1% were goat bones. The found items were jaw, teeth, scapula, pelvis, ribs and vertebra bones.
On some of the bones cut marks and burns were obvious. Cut marks are probably secondary to peeling and butchery process by a knife-like instrument. Abnormalities and bone reactions were seen on some items, most of them were adult to death.
Injuries which could be found on the bones are mostly manmade such as breaking the bones to have access to bone marrow, marks related to peeling process or cutting meat off the bones, burning marks secondary to cooking process and bite marks (Merritt, Sr 2016).
And the other injuries such as bite marks or signs of alimentation which caused by other animals.
17 pieces (11.8%) out of 144 goat and sheep bones and 3 (23%) out of 13 cattle bones were non adult I Iron Age1.
Most of the sheep and goats were adult at death which means they were exploited not only for primary product (meat) but also secondary products (milk, wool, breeding…). One of the advantages of goats is their reproductivity which makes their milk accessible. Cattles were being exploited not only for primary and secondary products but also for daily labor as transportation and plowing but duo to scarcity of their bones it could not be a precise finding.
Conclusion
By identifying the species from finding of Taghiabad, we could understand the strategies of subsistence such as herding and hunting and interactions among human- animals environment, which shows the important role of herding. The main sources of meat supply in Taghiabad site during Iron Age were sheep, goat and cattle (46.8%), sheep was the most found one then cattle and goat respectively. The reason for prevalence of cattle is its role in secondary products supply and its role in labor and transportation which is reflected in deformities on their bones. Equid, like cattle, were being used for labor and riding as well, most of them were adult at death which amplifies their role as secondary product supply source.
The most hunted animal were gazelles and sus scrofa (8.2% in Taghiabad1 and 5.59% in Taghiabad2). Comparison of findings from other sites of central Iran shows the equal importance of sheep and cattle herding among all of them in all Ages. Sheep was always more than goats. Study of the sus scrofa’s bones showed that except one sample, all the others were wild animals. Finally, we must emphasis that more precise results, require as more precise studies.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Interdisciplinary
Received: 2020/12/24 | Accepted: 2021/03/4 | Published: 2023/05/22
Received: 2020/12/24 | Accepted: 2021/03/4 | Published: 2023/05/22
References
1. - اسدیاجایی، سیدکمال؛ عباسنژادسرستی، رحمت؛ فاضلینشلی، حسن؛ و ولیپور، حمید، (1398). «تحلیل پیچیدگیهای اجتماعی- اقتصادی جوامع مرکز فلات ایران در هزارۀ پنجم قبل از میلاد براساس فناوری سفال». پژوهشهای باستانشناسی ایران، 20: 36-21.
2. - آقالاری، بایرام، (1387). «بررسی و مطالعۀ سفالینههای عصرآهن دشت ری براساس کاوشهای گورستان تپهپردیس». پایاننامۀ کارشناسیارشد باستانشناسی دانشگاه تهران (منتشرنشده).
3. - پوربخشنده، خسرو، (1382). «گزارش فصل سوم کاوش در محوطۀ باستانی فرهنگ سفال خاکستری تپه صرم، استان قم، بخش کهک، روستای صرم». تهران: مرکز اسناد پژوهشکدۀ باستانشناسی (منتشرنشده).
4. - تهرانیمقدم، احمد، (1373). «گورستان هزارۀ اول قبل از میلاد پیشوا». یادنامۀ گردهمایی شوش، جلد اول: 62-53.
5. - چایچیامیرخیز، احمد، (1386). «تپه مافینآباد». ویژهنامۀ پژوهشهای باستانشناسی استان تهران در سال 1385، ج 1، تهران پژوهشکدۀ باستانشناسی با همکاری سازمان میراثفرهنگی، صنایعدستی و گردشگری استان تهران و دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد ورامین- پیشوا: 45-37.
6. - حصــاری، مرتضــی، (۱۳۹۳). «کاوش لایهنــگاری معینآبــاد، شهرســتان پیشــوا، اســتان تهــران، اســتقراری از دورۀ روستانشــینی ابتدایــی در شــرق دشــت ری، مرکــز فـلات ایـران». گزارشهـای سـیزدهمین گردهمآیـی سـالانۀ باستانشناسـی ایـران، ۱۰ تـا ۱۲ اسـفندماه ۱۳۹۳، تهـران: پژوهشـگاه میراثفرهنگـی، صنایعدستی و گردشـگری: 113-110.
7. - حصاری، مرتضی، (1396). «تدفین عصرآهن در مرکز فلات ایران، مطالعه موردی: محوطۀ سفالین پیشوا». پژوهشهای باستانشناسی ایران، 7 (15): 101-116.
8. - حصـاری، مرتضـی؛ علییـاری، احمد؛ و اکبری، حسن، (۱۳۸۶). «گـزارش لایهنگاری و تعییـن حریـم در محوطـۀ باسـتانی شـغالی، پیشـوا». گزارشهـای باستانشناسـی 7، مجموعـه مقـالات نهمیـن گردهمآیـی سـالانۀ باستانشناسـی ایـران، تهـران: پژوهشـگاه ســازمان میراثفرهنگــی صنایعدستی و گردشــگری، پژوهشــکدۀ باستانشناســی: 164-131.
9. - خسروی، شکوه؛ خطیبشهیدی، حمید؛ وحدتینسب، حامد؛ و علیبیگی، سجاد، (1389). «الگوهای استقراری دوران پیشازتاریخ در حوضۀ آبریز ابهررود». پیامباستانشناس، 7 (13): 23-46.
10. - سرلک، سیامک، (1389). فرهنگ هفت هزار ساله شهر قم (کاوشهای باستانشناختی محوطۀ قلی درویش جمکران-قم). چاپ اول، ناشر: نقش.
11. - سرلک، سیامک؛ و عقیلینیاکی، شیرین، (1383). «تکنیکهای معماری و فنآوری فلزکاری در جوامع استقراری عصر آهن I و II محوطۀ قلیدرویش، جمکران-قم». اثر، 38 و 39: 59-96.
12. - عزتپور، مرتضی، (1382). پرورش گوسفند و بز بومی ایران. تهران: ناشر مرتضی عزتپور.
13. - ضیایی، هوشنگ، (1375). راهنمای صحرایی پستانداران ایران. تهران: انتشارات سازمان حفاظت محیطزیست.
14. - قاسمی، سبحان؛ حصاری، مرتضی؛ و اکبری، حسن، (1397). «زوارهور، مرکزی از دورۀ شهرنشینی (آغاز نگارش) دشت ورامین: بررسی شاخصههای سفالی». مطالعات باستانشناسی پارسه، 2 (4): 68-51.
15. - کابلی، میرعابدین، (1378). بررسیهای باستانشناسی قمرود. ضمیمۀ گزارشهای باستانشناسی 2، تهران: سازمان میراثفرهنگی کشور، پژوهشکدۀ باستانشناسی.
16. - مجیدزاده، یوسف، (1389). کاوشهای محوطۀ باستانی ازبکی. جلد اول، «هنر و معماری»، تهران: سازمان میراث فرهنگی، صنایع دستی و گردشگری استان تهران: 606-275.
17. - محمدیارلو، مجید؛ حصاری، مرتضی؛ و بیکمحمدی، خلیلالله، (1400). «ارزیابی و تحلیل فرهنگهای عصر آهن دشت ورامین-پیشوا، مبتنیبر کاوش تپۀ تقیآباد». مطالعات باستان شناسی پارسه، ۵ (۱۶): ۲۹-۵۰. (10.30699/PJAS.5.16.29).
18. - مشکور، مرجان، (1374). «باستان جانورشناسی و اهمیت آن در باستانشناسی». میراث فرهنگی، 13: 47-42.
19. - مشکور، مرجان (1381). «مقدمهای بر باستانجانورشناسی سیلک در زیگورات سیلک (بهکوشش دکتر صادق ملکشهمیرزادی)». سلسله گزارشهای باستانشناسی 2، تهران: انتشارات معاونت پژوهشی پژوهشکدۀ باستانشناسی: 142-135.
20. - مشکور، مرجان؛ و محاسبکریملو، فاطمه، (1389). «شکار و دامپروری در دشت ساوجبلاغ از هزارۀ ششم تا عصرآهن: محوطه ازبکی، مطالعه باستان جانورشناختی تپههای جیران، مارال، دوشان و ازبکی». کاوشهای محوطۀ باستانی ازبکی، جلد اول، هنر و معماری: 606-572.
21. - ملابیرامی، مرجان، (1397). «بررسی و تحلیل باستانشناسی بقایای استخوانهای جانوری عصرآهن محوطۀ قرهتپه سگزآباد». پایاننامۀ کارشناسیارشد باستانشناسی دانشگاه تهران (منتشرنشده).
22. - ملکشهمیرزادی، صادق، (1356). «گزارش مقدماتی فصل اول و دوم حفاری تپه سگزآباد». مارلیک، 2: 98-81.
23. - ملکشــهمیرزادی، صــادق، (۱۳۸۲). ایــران در پیــشازتاریــخ. چــاپ دوم، تهــران: انتشــارات ســازمان میراثفرهنگــی.
24. - مهرکیان، جعفر، (1374). «پژوهشی در معماری نوشناخته فرهنگ سفال خاکستری در تپه معمورین». مجموعه مقالات نخستین کنگرۀ تاریخ معماری و شهرسازی ایران، ارگ بم، کرمان، جلد سوم، تهران: سازمان میراثفرهنگی: 5-74.
26. - Abdul Rauf., (2014). “Animal Bone – A Brief Introduction, Department of Physics, PYP Jazan University, Jazan, K.S.A”. International Journal of Science, Environment and Technology, 3, (4): 1458 – 1464.
27. - Aghalari, B., (2008). “Evaluation and study of Iron Age ceramics in Ray plain based on Tappe Pardis Cemetery excavations”. Master Degree Thesis, Archeology Department of Tehran University (Unpublished).
28. - Albarella, U.; Dobney, K. & Rowley-Conwy, P., (2009). “Size and shape of the Eurosian wild boar (Sus scrofa), with a view to the reconstruction of its Holocene history”. Environmental Archaeology, 14(2): 103- 136.
29. - Asadi Ojaei. SK.; Abbasnejad, R.; Fazeli Nashli, H., et al (2019). “Analysis Socio-Economic Complexitiesof the Societies of the Central Plateau of Iran During 5th Millennium B.C.E. on the Basis of Pottery Technology”. Pazhoheshha-ye Bastan Shenasi Iran, 9: 21-36. (DOI: 10.22084/nbsh.2019.16225.1739).
30. - Binford, L. R., (1981). Faunal Remains from Klasies River Mouth. New York: Academic Press.
31. - Chaychi Amirkhiz, A., (2007). “Tappe Mafin Abad, Special Issue on archeologic studies of Tehran Province (2006)”. Vol. 1, Tehran: Archology Research Center in cooperation with Cultural Heritage, Handy crafts and tourism Organization of Tehran province and Islamic Azad University Varamin branch: 37-45.
32. - Davis, Simon, J. M., (1987). The Archaeology of Animals. London: BT, Batsford Ltd.
33. - Ezzatpour, M., (1382). Sheep and Goat breeding in Iran. 1st edition.
34. - Fazeli Nashli, H., (2001). “An Investigation of Craft Specialisation and Cultural Complexity of the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods in the Tehran Plain”. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Bradford.
35. - Fazeli, H.; Coningham, R. A.; Young, R. L.; Gillmore, G. K. & Maghsoudi, M., (2007). “Socio-economic Transformations in the Tehran Plain: Final season of Settlements Survey and Excavations at Tepe Pardis”. IRAN, XLV: 267-285.
36. - Ghasemi, S.; Hessari, M. & Akbari, H., (2018). “Zavarehvar, a center of civilization in Varamin plain: evaluation of ceramic indices”. Parseh archeological Studies, 2 (4): 51-68.
37. - Ghirshman, R., (1938). Fouilles de Sialk. Paris.
38. - Hessari, M., (2018). “Iron age’s Burials in Central Iranian Plateau Case Study: Tepe Sofalin, Pishva, Tehran Province”. Pazhoheshha-ye Bastan Shenasi Iran, 7: 101-116. (DOI: 10.22084/nbsh.2018.8093.1354).
39. - Hessari, M., (2014). “Strartigraphic excavation of Moeinabad, Pishva town, Tehran province, Residence from primary villagesat east of Ray plain, Center of Iran Plain”.Report of 13th annual symposium of archeology, 1-3 March 2015, Tehran: Cultural Heritage, Handy crafts and tourism Research center: 110-113.
40. - Hessari, M.; Aliyari, A. & Akbari, H., (2007). “Report of Stratigraphy and border identification at Shoghali archeologic site, Pishva”. Archologic Reports 7, Articles collection of 0th annial symposium of Iran archeology, Tehran: Handy crafts and tourism Research center: 131-164.
41. - Kaboli, M., (1999). Qomroud archeological assessments, appendix of archeological report 2. Tehran: Cultural heritage organization, Archeological research center.
42. - Khosravi, Sh.; KhtibShahidi, H.; Vahdatinasab, H. & Alibeygi, S., (2010). “Patterns of prehistoric residence in draining basin of Abhar river”. Payam-E-Bastanshenas, 7 (13): 23-46.
43. - London, D. B., (2005). “Zoo archaeology and historical archaeology: Progress and prospects”. Journal of archaeological method and theory. 12 (1): 1-36.
44. - Mashkour, M. & Yaghmayi, E., (1998). “Faunal remains from Tappeh Hessar (Iran); results of the 1995 excavation’’. Proceedings of XIII IUSPP Congress, sept. 1996, Forli, Italie, Vol. I: 543-551.
45. - Malek Shahmirzadi, S., (1977). “Primary report of first and second seasons of excavations in Sagzabad hills”. Malik Journal, 2: 81-98.
46. - Malek Shahmirzadi, S., (2012). Sialk villagers: Articles collection of Sialk Review Plan. Cultural heritage and handycraft research center.
47. - Malek Shahmirzadi, S., (2003). Prehistoric Iran. 2nd edition, Tehran: Publications of Cultural Heritage Organization.
48. - Marciniak, A., (2011). “The Secondary Products Revolution: Empirical Evidence and its Current Zooarchaeological Critique”. Journal of World Prehistory, 24: 17–130.
49. - Mashkour, M. & Mohaseb Karimlou, A., (2018). “Hunting and husbandry in Savojbolagh plain from 6th millennia B.C to Iron Age: Ozbaki site, Zooarcheological study of Jayran, Maral, Doushan and Ozbaki hills, Excavations of Ozbaki archeological site”. Volume 1, Art and Architecture, Cultural heritage, Handy crafts and tourism Organization of Tehran: 275-606.
50. - Mashkour, M., (2002). “An introduction to zooarcheology of Sialk in Sialk Ziggurat (Dr Sadegh Shahmirzadi), Series of archeological reports 2, publications of archeological research center”. deputy of research: 135-142.
51. - Merritt, S. R., (2016). “Cut Mark Cluster Geometry and Equifinality in Replicated Early Stone Age Butchery”. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 26(4: 585-98.
52. - Mohammad-Yarluo, M.; Hessari, M. & Beik-Mohammadi, Kh., (2021). “Evaluation and Analysis of Iron Age Cultures of Varamin-Pishva Plain, Based on Exploration of Taghiabad Tepe”. Parseh J Archaeol Stud, 5 (16): 29-5. (10.30699/PJAS.5.16.29).
53. - Mollabayrami, M., (2018). “Archeological assessment and analysis of animal bone remaining of Iron Age in Sagzabad, Qaratappe site”. Thesis of Master Degree, Tehran University (Unpublished).
54. - Monchot, H., (2020). “The faunal remains from Mamluk Khirbat al-Sar (Jordan)”. Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean, 29 (2): 677-697.
55. - O'Connor, T., (2018). “Zooarchaeology”. The Encyclopedia of Archaeological Sciences: 1-7.
56. - Payne, S., (1973). “Kill-off patterns in sheep and goats. The mandibles from Asvan Kale”. Anatolian Studies, 23: 281- 303.
57. - Pobiner B. L.; Higson, C. P.; Kovarovic, K.; Kaplan, R. S.; Rogers, J. & Schindler, W., (2018). “Experimental butchery study investigating the influence of timing of access and butcher expertise on cut mark variables”. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology. 28(4): 377-87.
58. - Pourbakhshande, Kh., (2003). “Report of the third season excavation in archeologic site of Farhang sofal khakestari tappe sarm, Qom province, Kahak district, Sarm village”.Iranian center for archeological research (Unpublished).
59. - Rackham, D. J., (1994). Animal Bones, Interpreting the Past. University of California Press.
60. - Redding, R., (1981). “Decision making in subsistence herding of sheep and goats in the Middle East”. Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan.
61. - Reitz, E. J. & Wing, E. S., (2008). Zooarchaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
62. - Report of Tehran department of environment, (2014). Department of environment of Varamin and Gharchak province, ecological view of Varamin and gharchak province.
63. - Sarlak, S. & Aghiliniaki, Sh., (2005). “Architectural technics and Metallurgic technologies in residences during Iron Ages I and II in Gholi Darvish Site, Jamkaran Qom”. Athar, 38 & 39: 59-96.
64. - Schmidt, E. F., (1937). Excavation at Tepe Hissar, Iran. Philadelphia.
65. - Sherratt, A., (1981). Plough and Pastoralism: Aspects of the Secondary Products Revolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
66. - Tehrani Moghaddam, A., (1994). “1 millennium B.C Pishva Cemetery”. Memorial of Susa Symposium, 1: 53-62.
67. - Vaufrey, R., (1939). “Faune de Sialk”. in: Ghrishman 1938-9.
68. - Vanden Berghe, L., (1964). La nécropole de Khurvin. Leiden.
69. - Vandenberghe, L., (1981). Luristan. Vorgeschichtliche Bronzekunst aus Iran, Munchen.
70. - Van Der warker, A.; Peres, M.; Tanya. M. & Media, L. L. C., (2010). Integrating Zooarchaeology and Paleoethnobotany, A Consideration of Issues, Methods and Cases. Springer Science+Business.
71. - Wilson, D. E. & Reeder, D. M., (2005). Mammal Species of the World, A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd Ed). Johns Hopkins University Press.
72. - Ziaei, H., (1996). Manual of Iranian Desert mammals. 1st edition, Department of environment, Tehran.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |