year 6, Issue 20 (9-2022)
Parseh J Archaeol Stud 2022, 6(20): 85-106 |
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:
Basafa H, Masihnia F. (2022). Investigation and Analysis of Pottery Characteristics of Milad Tape in Neyshabur Plain in the Perspective of Khorasan Iron Age. Parseh J Archaeol Stud. 6(20), 85-106. doi:10.30699/PJAS.6.20.85
URL: http://journal.richt.ir/mbp/article-1-646-en.html
URL: http://journal.richt.ir/mbp/article-1-646-en.html
1- Associate Professor, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Literature and Human Sciences, Neyshabor University, Neyshabor, Iran , hbasafa@gmail.com
2- M.A. in Archaeology, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Literature and Human Sciences, Neishabor University, Neishabor, Iran.
2- M.A. in Archaeology, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Literature and Human Sciences, Neishabor University, Neishabor, Iran.
Abstract: (2461 Views)
Abstract
The Iron Age in the Middle Asia and an important part of it that called Khorasan is a Transitional period between prehistory and historical period. This period always has many ambiguities and questions; Especially in Khorasan, where the lack of archaeological studies is strongly felt. In this area, the Neyshabur Plain has a special position in terms of archeology and is undoubtedly influential in understanding the cultural components of the Iron Age in the region. In the current study, Milad Tape, which is located almost in the middle of Neyshabur Plain, was sampled as a systematic survey. The purpose of this work is to obtain information that can be used to advance the long-term goals of interpreting the Iron Age in Khorasan, especially Neyshabur. In this regard, the most important question is how Iron Age in the perspective of recent studies of Khorasan cultural field. In Milad Tape, whose surface is flat and smooth, sampling of cultural materials has been carried out in the framework of a systematic survey in order to study the Iron Age in a comparative approach with the typology and classification of pottery. Also, by using the settlement pattern of the area and other settlement components of Milad Tape, it is possible to fully examine and read part of the unknown structures of the Iron Age of the Neyshabur Plain and, accordingly, Khorasan. According to the research results, Milad Tape, which has a settlement sequence in the Iron Age, can be interpreted in the framework of the Early to Late Iron Age of the region. Pottery typology studies, also show similarity with the Central Asia Iron Age, which is known as Yaz I to III based on the material cultural of Yaz Depe area. In general, in the comparative approach, Milad Tape samples are closely related to Yaz pottery tradition.
Keywords: Iron Age Khorasan, Neyshabur Plain, Yaz, Milad Tape.
Introduction
Among the archaeology and cultural periods of Khorasan, there is a lack of studies in the second and first millennia BC. Although the first study of this region that led to the recognition of the Iron Age, dates back to the 1980s (Riccardi, 1980). In recent decades, archaeologists have tried to make the knowledge of this period more complete (Vahdati, 2015, 2018; Basafa, 2021, 2020, 2015, 2016). The most important archaeological investigations consist of Atrak River project in North Khorasan (Dana, 2015 and 2019; Vahdati, 2016), Daregaz Plain (Basafa & Hedayati, 2020), Neyshabur Plain (Basafa, 2017), Roshtkhar Plain (Rezayi, et. al., 2018), Gonabad Plain (Basafa, 2021) and Birjand Plain (Dana, 2014).
From the mentioned researches, it can be understood that neighboring cultures are very important, such as the ancient Dahistan culture in the northeast of the Mazandaran Sea, which can also be seen in the plains of Gorgan and North Khorasan (Lecomte, 2005) and Yaz culture (Kohl, 1984: 193).
In completing the archeological information of Khorasan Iron Age, Neyshabur plain sites are very important because of the location of Neyshabur plain and its environmental potentials (Rezaei & Basafa, 2019). Milad Tape (Fig. 1) is located in this geographical environment, which belongs to the Iron Age. Milad Tape and other sites like Se Tape can show new evidence of local cultures and cultural interactions with Central Asia.
Materials and Methods: This research relies on the material cultures that collected from the systematic survey of site. It’s most important cultural materials are potsherds, were first studied in a statistical approach and then analyzed comparatively in comparison with neighboring cultures.
Data
In the sampling conducted in Milad Tape, were obtained various stone tools such as blades and chips, metal melting slags, furnace welds and a significant number of potsherds. A total of 1586 pieces of potsherd have been sampled from the surface of the site, and among the three general categories of rim, body and floor, the most abundant pieces belong to the body. From the total samples that can be dated in Iron Age I, the rim has a frequency of 1%, the body 93% and the bottom 6%. In the Iron Age II and III, the rim and the bottom with an abundance of 3% and the body with 93% of the total have the most parts. Among the examples that can be dated in this site, where a comparative approach was used, three periods can be distinguished from the Early to the Late Iron Age.
Discussion
Looking at the most important cultural material of Milad Tape, we can say that its pottery components are closely related to Central Asia. In the Early Iron Age, in this site, an important phenomenon is low-quality handmade pottery, which is considered one of the main characteristics of Yaz I. In the middle and Late Iron Age, the previous statements also apply, and its morphology also shows that similarities in terms of construction and form can be seen in Milad Tape pottery in these periods as well. In this context, double-lobe pottery, which is defined as the most important characteristic of Yaz II and III cultures, was produced in a wide range with minor changes in the Neyshabur plain.
In completing the studies, environmental factors are very important, and based on this, Milad Tape is located in the range of 900 to 1200 meters above sea level in terms of height, and in terms of the settlement pattern, it is located in the lowlands of the Neyshabur plain (Fig. 7), which has suitable land for population development. The study of Milad Tape water resources, which undoubtedly played an important role in choosing the location of the sites, shows that there is a direct relationship between the water resources and the location of the site, so that its small distance from the water sources has caused it to grow well in terms of dimensions. Milad is located near Kale-Shure in the center of the plain (Fig. 8) where many waterways and streams flow into it, the most important of which flowed a short distance from the site. This satellite has been able to facilitate access to water resources for agriculture and livelihood. The study of land use (Fig. 9) also shows that Milad is in a good agricultural position and probably suitable water sources have caused agriculture to be carried out by hydroponics in this area. Based on this, the location of the settlement surrounded by suitable pastures has provided the conditions for animal husbandry and livestock breeding for the livelihood of the population of the area. Based on the mentioned materials and in the general view, Milad Tape has created suitable conditions and platform for the use of agriculture in the region. On the other hand, the existence of pastures has provided the grounds for subsistence economy based on animal husbandry.
Conclusion
Due to the strategic location of access to water resources and the use of fertile soil, Milad Tape is one of the important sites and settlements in this area, along with other sites, especially Set Tape. By analyzing the cultural materials, a settlement sequence from the Yaz I period and its continuation to Yaz II and III was observed, which shows that it was of special importance in the Neyshabur plain and was efficient in drawing chronological horizons and presenting cultural components along with other sites. The few analyzes of the settlement pattern of Milad Tape also show that suitable water sources were available and the agricultural land was ready. This location selection pattern is also observed in Central Asia. Based on biological patterns, fertile soil, and agricultural use in the effective use of land in the Milad Tape area, it shows that there was a permanent settlement with a livelihood based on agriculture in its settlement area, which may have been three hills. The influence of the cultural characteristics of Central Asia and Yaz culture in Milad Tape, according to the typology of pottery, shows the influence and cultural interactions.
Acknowledgments
We would like to gratitude and appreciation to the respected of the cultural heritage department chief of Neyshabur city, Mr. M. E., Etemadi, for his support in the field activity.
The Iron Age in the Middle Asia and an important part of it that called Khorasan is a Transitional period between prehistory and historical period. This period always has many ambiguities and questions; Especially in Khorasan, where the lack of archaeological studies is strongly felt. In this area, the Neyshabur Plain has a special position in terms of archeology and is undoubtedly influential in understanding the cultural components of the Iron Age in the region. In the current study, Milad Tape, which is located almost in the middle of Neyshabur Plain, was sampled as a systematic survey. The purpose of this work is to obtain information that can be used to advance the long-term goals of interpreting the Iron Age in Khorasan, especially Neyshabur. In this regard, the most important question is how Iron Age in the perspective of recent studies of Khorasan cultural field. In Milad Tape, whose surface is flat and smooth, sampling of cultural materials has been carried out in the framework of a systematic survey in order to study the Iron Age in a comparative approach with the typology and classification of pottery. Also, by using the settlement pattern of the area and other settlement components of Milad Tape, it is possible to fully examine and read part of the unknown structures of the Iron Age of the Neyshabur Plain and, accordingly, Khorasan. According to the research results, Milad Tape, which has a settlement sequence in the Iron Age, can be interpreted in the framework of the Early to Late Iron Age of the region. Pottery typology studies, also show similarity with the Central Asia Iron Age, which is known as Yaz I to III based on the material cultural of Yaz Depe area. In general, in the comparative approach, Milad Tape samples are closely related to Yaz pottery tradition.
Keywords: Iron Age Khorasan, Neyshabur Plain, Yaz, Milad Tape.
Introduction
Among the archaeology and cultural periods of Khorasan, there is a lack of studies in the second and first millennia BC. Although the first study of this region that led to the recognition of the Iron Age, dates back to the 1980s (Riccardi, 1980). In recent decades, archaeologists have tried to make the knowledge of this period more complete (Vahdati, 2015, 2018; Basafa, 2021, 2020, 2015, 2016). The most important archaeological investigations consist of Atrak River project in North Khorasan (Dana, 2015 and 2019; Vahdati, 2016), Daregaz Plain (Basafa & Hedayati, 2020), Neyshabur Plain (Basafa, 2017), Roshtkhar Plain (Rezayi, et. al., 2018), Gonabad Plain (Basafa, 2021) and Birjand Plain (Dana, 2014).
From the mentioned researches, it can be understood that neighboring cultures are very important, such as the ancient Dahistan culture in the northeast of the Mazandaran Sea, which can also be seen in the plains of Gorgan and North Khorasan (Lecomte, 2005) and Yaz culture (Kohl, 1984: 193).
In completing the archeological information of Khorasan Iron Age, Neyshabur plain sites are very important because of the location of Neyshabur plain and its environmental potentials (Rezaei & Basafa, 2019). Milad Tape (Fig. 1) is located in this geographical environment, which belongs to the Iron Age. Milad Tape and other sites like Se Tape can show new evidence of local cultures and cultural interactions with Central Asia.
Materials and Methods: This research relies on the material cultures that collected from the systematic survey of site. It’s most important cultural materials are potsherds, were first studied in a statistical approach and then analyzed comparatively in comparison with neighboring cultures.
Data
In the sampling conducted in Milad Tape, were obtained various stone tools such as blades and chips, metal melting slags, furnace welds and a significant number of potsherds. A total of 1586 pieces of potsherd have been sampled from the surface of the site, and among the three general categories of rim, body and floor, the most abundant pieces belong to the body. From the total samples that can be dated in Iron Age I, the rim has a frequency of 1%, the body 93% and the bottom 6%. In the Iron Age II and III, the rim and the bottom with an abundance of 3% and the body with 93% of the total have the most parts. Among the examples that can be dated in this site, where a comparative approach was used, three periods can be distinguished from the Early to the Late Iron Age.
Discussion
Looking at the most important cultural material of Milad Tape, we can say that its pottery components are closely related to Central Asia. In the Early Iron Age, in this site, an important phenomenon is low-quality handmade pottery, which is considered one of the main characteristics of Yaz I. In the middle and Late Iron Age, the previous statements also apply, and its morphology also shows that similarities in terms of construction and form can be seen in Milad Tape pottery in these periods as well. In this context, double-lobe pottery, which is defined as the most important characteristic of Yaz II and III cultures, was produced in a wide range with minor changes in the Neyshabur plain.
In completing the studies, environmental factors are very important, and based on this, Milad Tape is located in the range of 900 to 1200 meters above sea level in terms of height, and in terms of the settlement pattern, it is located in the lowlands of the Neyshabur plain (Fig. 7), which has suitable land for population development. The study of Milad Tape water resources, which undoubtedly played an important role in choosing the location of the sites, shows that there is a direct relationship between the water resources and the location of the site, so that its small distance from the water sources has caused it to grow well in terms of dimensions. Milad is located near Kale-Shure in the center of the plain (Fig. 8) where many waterways and streams flow into it, the most important of which flowed a short distance from the site. This satellite has been able to facilitate access to water resources for agriculture and livelihood. The study of land use (Fig. 9) also shows that Milad is in a good agricultural position and probably suitable water sources have caused agriculture to be carried out by hydroponics in this area. Based on this, the location of the settlement surrounded by suitable pastures has provided the conditions for animal husbandry and livestock breeding for the livelihood of the population of the area. Based on the mentioned materials and in the general view, Milad Tape has created suitable conditions and platform for the use of agriculture in the region. On the other hand, the existence of pastures has provided the grounds for subsistence economy based on animal husbandry.
Conclusion
Due to the strategic location of access to water resources and the use of fertile soil, Milad Tape is one of the important sites and settlements in this area, along with other sites, especially Set Tape. By analyzing the cultural materials, a settlement sequence from the Yaz I period and its continuation to Yaz II and III was observed, which shows that it was of special importance in the Neyshabur plain and was efficient in drawing chronological horizons and presenting cultural components along with other sites. The few analyzes of the settlement pattern of Milad Tape also show that suitable water sources were available and the agricultural land was ready. This location selection pattern is also observed in Central Asia. Based on biological patterns, fertile soil, and agricultural use in the effective use of land in the Milad Tape area, it shows that there was a permanent settlement with a livelihood based on agriculture in its settlement area, which may have been three hills. The influence of the cultural characteristics of Central Asia and Yaz culture in Milad Tape, according to the typology of pottery, shows the influence and cultural interactions.
Acknowledgments
We would like to gratitude and appreciation to the respected of the cultural heritage department chief of Neyshabur city, Mr. M. E., Etemadi, for his support in the field activity.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Special Archeology
Received: 2021/10/8 | Accepted: 2022/01/29 | Published: 2022/09/1
Received: 2021/10/8 | Accepted: 2022/01/29 | Published: 2022/09/1
References
1. - باصفا، حسن، (1396). «تبیین فرهنگهای دورۀ آهن دشت نیشابور براساس مواد فرهنگی تپه تیغمهره». جامعهشناسی تاریخی، 9: 18-1.
2. - باصفا، حسن؛ و داوری، صادق، (1399). «ارزیابی مؤلفهها و حوزۀ پراکنش فرهنگ یاز I-III در حوزۀ فرهنگی خراسان». جستارهای باستانشناسی پیش از اسلام، 5 (2): 45-62.
3. - باصفا، حسن، (1400). «تحلیل مقدماتی فرهنگ های سفالی عصر آهن شمال شرق ایران مطالعه موردی: محوطه حصار عمرانی دشت گناباد». جستارهای باستانشناسی ایران پیش از اسلام، 6(1): 95-110.
4. - باصفا، حسن؛ و رضایی، محمدحسین، (1395). «گزارش مقدماتی اولین فصل کاوشهای باستانشناختی محوطۀ سهتپه». تهران: مرکز اسناد پژوهشکدۀ باستانشناسی (منتشرنشده).
5. - باصفا، حسن؛ و رضایی، محمدحسین، (1398). «گزارش سومین فصل کاوش در محوطۀ سهتپه». مشهد: مرکز اسناد ادارۀ کل میراثفرهنگی خراسان رضوی (منتشرنشده).
6. - بریان، پییر.؛ و بوشارلا، رمی، (1392). باستانشناسی امپراتوری هخامنشی، پژوهشهای نوین. ترجمۀ سیدمحمد امینامامی، علیاکبر وحدتی، محمود بهفروزی و اسماعیل سنگاری، تهران: بنگاه ترجمه و نشر کتاب پارسه.
7. - دارابی، حسن، (1377). «مدلی برای مکانیابی سکونتگاههای روستایی». مسکن و محیط روستا، 83: 16-13 .
8. - دانا، محسن؛ و هژبرینوبری، علیرضا، (1399). «سفال عصرآهن در حوضۀ اترک میانی، شمال خراسان، ایران». پژوهشهای باستانشناسی ایران، 10 (27): 94-73.
9. - دانا، محسن، (1394). «گزارش مقدماتی کاوش در تپه تخچرآباد بیرجند: محوطهای از آغاز دوران تاریخی در شرق ایران». مجلۀ پژوهشهای باستانشناسی مدرس. 12 و 13: 72-59.
10. - دانا، محسن، (1398). «سنتهای سفالی اواخر عصرآهن و هخامنشی در شرق ایران». مجموعه مقالات عصرآهن در غرب ایران و مناطق همجوار، تهران: پژوهشگاه میراثفرهنگی و گردشگری: 410-393.
11. - دروت، پیتر ال، (1392). درآمدی بر باستانشناسی میدانی. ترجمۀ حجت دارابی، تهران: سمت.
12. - سیدسجادی، سیدمنصور، (1395). باستانشناسی آسیای مرکزی. جلد اول، تهران: انتشارات سمت.
13. - سیدسجادی، سیدمنصور، (1396). باستانشناسی آسیای مرکزی. جلد دوم، تهران: انتشارات سمت.
14. - علیبیگی، سجاد، (1400). «بررسی ارتباطِ «سفال با آمیزۀ خردهسنگ» با ارتقای روند پخت غذا؛ از دورۀ مس و سنگ تا دورۀ اسلام». پژوهشهای باستانشناسی ایران، 11 (29): 33-58.
15. - فهیمی، حمید، (1381). فرهنگ عصرآهن در کرانههای جنوبغربی دریای خزر از دیدگاه باستانشناسی. تهران: سمیرا.
16. - کوهل، فیلیپ، (1394). باستانشناسی آسیای مرکزی از دورۀ پارینهسنگی تا عصرآهن. ترجمۀ حسین رمضانپور و معصومه مرادیان، تهران: انتشارات سمیرا.
17. - هرینک، ارنی، (1376). سفال ایران در دوران اشکانی. ترجمۀ حمیده چوبک، انتشارات سازمان میراث فرهنگی کشور.
18. - هستر، تامس آر؛ شیفر، هری جی؛ و و فدر، کنت ل. (1392). روشهای میدانی در باستانشناسی. ترجمۀ کمالالدین نیکنامی، حسین صبری، تهران: سمت.
19. - وحدتی، علیاکبر، (1394). «عصرمفرغ و آهن خراسان (3000 تا 500 ق.م)». گذری بر باستانشناسی خراسان، بهکوشش میثم لبافخانیکی، تهران: انتشارات سازمان میراثفرهنگی: 47-37.
20. - وحدتی، علیاکبر، (1399). «عصرآهن در شرق ایران (1500-550 ق.م.)». مجموعه مقالات نخستین همایش دوسالانه انجمن باستانشناسی ایران. بهکوشش: سیدمهدی موسویکوهپر، شاهین آریامنش، مجید منتظرظهوری و مرتضی خانیپور، تهران: آریارمنا: 220-165.
21. - یوسفیزشک، روحالله؛ و باقیزاده، سعید، (1391). «کاربرد سیستمهای اطلاعات جغرافیایی (GIS) تحلیل الگوی استقراری: مطالعۀ موردی محوطههای دشت درگز از دورۀ نوسنگی تا پایان عصرآهن». پژوهشهای باستانشناسی ایران، 2 (2): 7-24.
23. - Alibaigi, S., (2021). “Investigation the Role of Gird Inclusion in Pottery to Improve the Process of Food Preparing; from Chalcolithic to Islamic Period”. Pazhoheshha-ye Bastan shenasi Iran, 11(29): 33-58.
24. - Askarov, A., (1992). “The Beginning of the Iron Age in Transoxiana”. In: History of Civilization of Central Asia, Edited by: A. H. Dani and V.M. Mason, UNESCO Publishing. 1: 441-459.
25. - Basafa, H., (2017). “Explaining the Neyshabur plain Iron Age cultures based on Material culture of Tighe Mohre”. Journal of Historical Sociology, 9 (1): 1-18.
26. - Basafa, H., (2021). “Preliminary analysis of Iron Age pottery cultures in Northeastern Iran Case study: Hesare Omrani in the Gonabad plain”. Journal of Iran's Pre Islamic Archaeological Essays, 6(1): 95-110.
27. - Basafa, H. & Davari, M., (2021). “A New Perspective on the Archaeology of the Khorasan Region during the Iron Age”. Iranian Journal of Archaeological Studies, 11(1): 41-53.
28. - Basafa, H. & Davari, M., (2021). “Evaluation of components and distribution area of Yaz-I-III culture in northeastern Iran with emphasis on Khorasan cultural area”.Journal of Iran's Pre Islamic Archaeological Essays, 5(2): 45-62
29. - Basafa, H. & hedayati, Z., (2020). “The Iron Age in the Daregaz Plain (Northern Khaorasan), A Case Study Kohne Ghale Site”. Iranica Antiqua, 55: 129-143.
30. - Basafa, H. & Rezaei, M. H., (2016). “Preliminary Report of the First Season of Se Tepe Site”. Annual of the Archaeological Research Center.
31. - Basafa, H. & Rezaei, M. H., (2019). “Preliminary Report of the Third Season of Se Tepe Site”. Annual of the Archaeological Research Center.
32. - Bendezu-Sarmiento, J. & Lhuillier, J., (2011). “Iron Age in Turkmenistan: Ulug-Depe in the Kopetdagh Piedmont”. In: M. Mamedow (ed.), Historical and Cultural sites of Turkmenistan. Discoveries, Researches and restoration for 20 years of independence, Turkmen state publishing service.
33. - Boucharlat, R.; Francfort, H. P. & Lecomte, O., (2005). “The Citadel of Ulug-Depe and the Iron Age Archaeological Sequence in Southern Central Asia”. Iranica Antiqua, 40: 479–514.
34. - Briant, P. & Boucharlat, R., (2014). Une traduction persane (avec E. Sangari) de L'archéologie de l'Empire achéménide: nouvelles recherches. Translated by: A. Emami, A. A. Vahdati, M. Behfrouzi and E. Sangari, Tehran: Parse
35. - Bulawka, N., (2011). “Decorative motifs of the Early Iron Age (Yaz I) pottery in southern Turkmenistan, Swiatowit”. Annual of the Institute of Archaeology of the University of Warsaw, VII (XLIX): 121-131.
36. - Buławka, N., (2017). “The Yaz I–III Settlement Pattern in the Serakhs Oasis, Southern Turkmenistan”. IRAN, 55(2): 143-170.
37. - Burke, H. & Smith, C., (2004). The Archaeologist’s Field Handbook. Australian Academy of Humanities.
38. - Dana, M. & Hozhabri. A., (2018). “The Role of Cultural Factors in Locating of Archaeological Sites: the Settlement Patterns of Prehistoric Sites in Jājarm, Khorasan, Iran”. IRAN, 57(18): 123-141.
39. - Dana, M., (2015). “Preliminary Report on Excavations at Tappe Takhchar Abad”. Pazhoheshhaye Bastanshenasi Modares, 12-13: 59-72.
40. - Dana, M., (2019). “The Late Iron Age and the Achaemenid pottery traditions in Eastern Iran”. The Iron Age in Western Iran and Neighboring Regions, ICHTO: 393-410.
41. - Dana, M. & Hejebri Nobari, A., (2021). “The Iron Age Pottery in the Middle Atrak Basin, North of Khorasan of Iran”. Pazhoheshha-ye Bastan Shenasi Iran, 10 (27): 73-94.
42. - Darabi, H., (2017). “A model for locating rural settlements”. Village Housing and Environment, 83: 13-16.
43. - Drewett, P. L., (2012). Field Archaeology an Introduction. Translated by: Hojjat Darabi, Samt.
44. - Fahimi, H., (2000). Iron Age culture in the southwestern shores of the Caspian Sea from an archaeological perspective. Tehran: Samira.
45. - Hrink, E., (1997). Iran's pottery during the Parthian era. Translated by: Hamida Chobak, Tehran: ICHTO.
46. - Hester, T. R.; Schieffer, H. J. & Kenneth, L. F., (2012). Field methods in archaeology. Translated by: Kamaluddin Niknami, Hossein Sabri, Tehran: Samt.
47. - Hiebert, F. T. & Dyson, R. H., (2002). “Prehistoric Nishapour and the frontier between Central Asia and Iran”. Iranica Antiqua, XXXVII: 113-149.
48. - Kohl, P., (2016). Central Asia: Paleolithic beginnings to the Iron Age. Translated by: H. Ramezanpur & M. Moradiyan, Tehran: Samira.
49. - Kohl, P., (1984). Central Asia: Paleolithic beginnings to the Iron Age. Editions Recherchésure les civilizations, Paris.
50. - Lecomte, O., (2005). “The Iron Age of Northern Hyrcania”. Iranica Antiqua, XL: 461-478.
51. - Lhuillier, J. & Rapin, C., (2013). “Handmade painted ware in Koktepe: some elements for the chronology of early Iron Age in northern Sogdiana, Marcin Wagner: Pottery and chronology of the Early Iron Age in Central Asia”. The Kazimierz Michalowski Foundation: 29-48.
52. - Lhuillier, J., (2010). Le phénomène des" cultures à céramique modelée peinte " en Asie centrale dans l'évolution et la transformation des sociétés de la fin de l'âge du Bronze et du début de l'âge du Fer (IIe-Ier millénaire avant n.è.). Une synthèse comparative et régionale de la culture matérielle. Archéologie ET Préhistoire. Université Panthéon.Sorbonne. Paris I.
53. - Lhuillier, J., (2013). Les cultures à céramique modelée peinte en Asie centrale méridionale. Dynamiques socioculturelles à l’âge du Fer ancien (1500-1000 av. n.è.), Paris.
54. - Lhuillier, J., (2014). L’Archéologie françaiseen Asie central. Nouvelles recherches et enjeux socioculturels.
55. - Lhuillier, J., (2018). “Central Asia During the Achaemenid Period in Archaeological Perspective”. In: Sébastien Gondet and Ernie Haerinck (eds.), Acta Iranica 58, L'Orient Est Son Jardin, Hommage á Rémy Boucharlat, Peeters, Leuven, Paris, Bristol: 257-272.
56. - Lhuillier, J., (2019). “The settlement pattern in Central Asia during the Early Iron Age”. In: Urban Cultures of Central Asia from the Bronze Age to the arakhanids, Learnings and conclusions from new archaeological investigations and discoveries, Edited by Christoph Baumer and Mirko Novák: 115-129.
57. - Lhuillier, J.; Dupont-delaleuf, A.; Lecomte, O. & Bendezu-sarmiento, J., (2013). “The Middle Iron Age in Ulug-depe: A preliminary typo-chronological and technological study of the Yaz II ceramic complex”. In: M. Wagner (ed.), Pottery and chronology of the Early Iron Age in Central Asia, Warsaw: 9-28
58. - Lhuillier, J.; Dupont-Delaleuf, A. O. & Bendezu-Sarmiento, J., (2014). The Middle Iron Age in Ulug depe: a preliminary typo-chronological and technological study of the Yaz II ceramic complex. Institute of Archaeology, University of Warsaw.
59. - Lhuillier. J. & Bendezu-Sarmiento, J., (2021). “Recent discoveries on the Hellenistic and Parthian Occupation of Ulug depe”. Akheologicheskie Vesti., 32: 212-227. (in Russian).
60. - Masson, V. M., (1959). Drevnezemledel’cheskaja kul’tura Margiany. Moscow.
61. - Rezaei, M. H., & Basafa, H., (2019). “The impact of geological processes on the location of Shahrake Firouzeh, a prehistoric site from NE Iran”. Ancient Asia, 10: 1-13.
62. - Rezaei, M. H.; Zanganeh Ebrahimi, J. & Basafa, H., (2018). “The Settlement Patterns in Roshtkhar Plain, Northeastern of Iran”. IRAN, 57(2): 109-122.
63. - Ricciardi, R. V., (1980). “Archaeological Survey in Upper Atrak Valley (Khorassan, Iran): Preliminary Report”. Mesopotamia, XV (15), Revista de l archeologia, epigrafia e storia orientale antica: 51-72.
64. - Rice, P. M., (1973). Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. Chicago, the university of Chicago press.
65. - Sajjadi, S. S., (2016). Archaeology of central Asia. Vol. I, Tehran: Samt.
66. - Sajjadi, S. S., (2017). Archaeology of central Asia. Vol. II, Tehran: Samt.
67. - Sarianidi, V. I., (1971). “Issledovanie sloev rannezhelenogo veka na Ulug-depe”.Arkheologicheskie Otkrytiya 1970: 433–434.
68. - Shepard, A. O., (1980). Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington DC
69. - Vahdati, A. A., (2015). “Bronze and Iron Age of Khorasan (3000 to 500 BC)”. Gozari Bar Bastanshenasi Khorasan, by: M. Labaf Khaniki, Tehran: Cultural Heritage Organization Publications: 37-47.
70. - Vahdati, A. A., (2020). “Iron Age in eastern Iran (1500-550 BC)”. Proceedings of the first biennial conference of the Iranian Archaeological Association. By the efforts of S. M. Mousavi Kouhpar, S. Aria Manesh, M. Montazer Zohori and M. Khanipour. Tehran: Ariarmena: 165-220.
71. - Vahdati, A. A., (2016). “A Preliminary Report on the First Season of Jayran Tepe in the Plain of Esfarayen, Northeastern Iran, 2012”. Iranica Antiqua, LI: 85-101.
72. - Vahdati, A. A., (2018). “The Early Iron Age in Northern Kharasan”. In: A Millennium of History, The Iron Age in southern Central Asia (2nd and 1st Millennia B.C.), Proceedings of the conference held in Berlin (June 23–25, 2014). Dedicated to the memory of Viktor Ivanovich Sarianidi. Johanna Lhuillier & Nikolaus Boroffka (eds.), Berlin: Deutshes Archäologisches Institut. pp: 51-66.
73. - Yousefi zoshk, R. & Baghizadeh, S., (2013). “Application of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) in Analysis of Settlement Pattern; Case Study of Dargaz Plain’s Sites from Neolithic Period until the End of Iron Age IV”. Pazhoheshha-ye Bastanshenasi Iran, 2(2): 7-24.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |