year 7, Issue 25 (12-2023)
Parseh J Archaeol Stud 2023, 7(25): 137-163 |
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:
Fardizadeh F, Saghaee S, Shshsavari M, Nowrozi A. (2023). Location of the Port of Old Hormoz based on Archaeological Evidence and Historical Texts. Parseh J Archaeol Stud. 7(25), 137-163. doi:10.30699/PJAS.7.25.137
URL: http://journal.richt.ir/mbp/article-1-756-en.html
URL: http://journal.richt.ir/mbp/article-1-756-en.html
1- M A. in Archaeology, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Jiroft, Jiroft, Iran
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Jiroft, Jiroft, Iran
3- PhD in Archaeology, Freelance Researcher, Iran ,shahsavar2891@gmail.om
4- Bachelor of Archeology Department of Cultural Heritage, Tourism and Handicrafts of Hormozgan Province, Hormozgan, Iran
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Jiroft, Jiroft, Iran
3- PhD in Archaeology, Freelance Researcher, Iran ,
4- Bachelor of Archeology Department of Cultural Heritage, Tourism and Handicrafts of Hormozgan Province, Hormozgan, Iran
Abstract: (1764 Views)
Abstract
One of the most important commercial ports of Iran in the Islamic period was the old Hormoz (Hormuoz). This port was part of Jiroft area in the early to middle centuries AH. In the fifth century AH and after the decline of the commercial prosperity of Siraf port, Hromouz was one of the most important and active maritime trade centers of Iran in the northern margin of the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman; And was associated with most of the important economic, commercial, and industrial centers of the ancient World. At the end of the seventh century AH, following the local conflicts and insecurity in the region, the establishment of Hormoz was transferred from the coast to an island in front of it called “Joron”. According to historical texts, after this relocation, the coastal port was called “Old Hormoz” and the island was called “New Hormoz”. The most important period of prosperity was the establishment of old Hormoz from the fifth century to the end of the seventh century AH. The aim of the present study is to identify and locate “old Hormoz” based on archaeological evidence and historical sources, and the research is on the question of where the port of old Hormoz was based on archaeological data and historical sources? For this purpose, basic information has been collected in two ways: field and documentary. Based on historical texts, the location of old Hormoz in the city of Minab can be traced. While there is no ancient city or site called old Hormoz on the coast of this city. Written sources, on the other hand, do not have an organized structure in old Hormoz, and the location of the port and the residence of the merchants are not located in the same place and are far apart. Based on this, it seems that among the 36 sites of the Islamic period that have been identified in the studies of the archaeological city of Minab, the site of “Chakha” next to the estuary (gulf) of Chakha has been the remains of the old port of Hormoz.
Keywords: Old Hormouz, Site of Chakha, Minab City, Archaeological Survey.
Introduction
Most scholars believe that old Hormuz was located in present-day Minab (le Strange, 2012: 341); But its exact limits are not clear. Various researchers have introduced areas such as Kohestak, Moghistan and Ebrahimi as well as Bandar Tiab as the place of old Hormoz (Vosoughi, 1384: 148; Ebrahimi, 1384: 45). A number of ancient geographers have pointed to something that could solve this problem, and in fact raises another issue: “The residence of merchants is located in the surrounding villages, about two Farsang from Hormuz.” (Istakhri, 2004: 99). Ibn Hawql has also mentioned the existence of merchants’ houses in the surrounding villages and diyats without mentioning the journeys (Ibn Hawql, 1987: 76-78); Moghaddasi (1385: 688) and the Author of Hudood al-Alam (1362: 127) also mentioned the location of the city of Hormuz in one Mil and a half Mile of the sea or the Great Sea, respectively. Considering this, it seems that old Hormoz had two parts: port and residential. As a result, finding the location of old Hormuz depends on finding its port. With this introduction, the main question of the present study is that based on archaeological data and historical sources, where was the port of old Hormoz? The study area has historically been called Hormouz, Hormoz and Minab. There are two views on the spelling of the word Hormuz; One is that it is composed of two parts: “Hour” means “estuary” or bay and “Mouz, Mogh” is the name of Mughestan province. The second view, which is derived from the word “Ourmazd” or “Hormozd” name of the Zoroastrian God (Nowruzi, 1390: 5-6). The date of construction of old Hormoz or Hormoz Barri (Minab) is attributed to Ardeshir Babakan (Saeedi, 1386: 45). Minab city with an area of 5135 square kilometers (statistical yearbook of Hormozgan province, 1396: 50) is located in the southeast of Hormozgan province and from the north with Rudan city and from the northwest with Bandar Abbas city. It is limited to Jask city from the southeast and Kerman province from the northeast.
Discussion
Based on archaeological evidence from 36 sites of the Islamic period in Minab city and analysis of the content of historical geographical sources about Hormoz, it seems that the Chakha or Chakha site in Bandzarak village in the central part of Minab city is more adaptable to the old Hormoz than other sites. Accordingly, first a general description of the Chekha site and then arguments for locating the old Hormoz port based on textual sources and matching them with archaeological evidence will be provided. Chakha site has been identified and introduced by Sarlak in the second season of archaeological studies of Minab plain in winter 1384 and spring 1386 (Sarlak, 1385). In 1390, Nowruzi in this area with the aim of determining frontage, began to excavate (Nowruzi, 1390). Although in his opinion, due to the monthly and daily tides of sea water and flooding of parts of the area, it is not possible to accurately determine the area and privacy of this area, but its approximate area can be estimated at about 40 hectares (Nowruzi, 2011). However, it is difficult to identify archaeological evidence during the day when seawater is low. This area is completely covered with coastal sand soil.
In addition to architectural evidence, artifacts such as bricks, coins, bones, various stones and pottery can be seen on the surface of the Chekha at high tide. The pottery fragments of this site are divided into two groups: unglazed (54 pieces) and glazed (180 pieces). Unglazed pottery samples are divided into two categories: “unadorned” and “decorated”. Unglazed, unadorned pottery in the Chekha area has a clay paste in a buff, red, or gray color range. With the exception of two handmade pieces, all parts in this group are spinning. The unglazed and simple type of pottery with gray paste, which has the largest number in this group of pottery, includes parts belonging to open-mouthed containers, laver, trays and lids. The glazed pottery pieces of the Chekha site also include various types, “ monochrome glazed”, “ monochrome glazed with carved decoration”, “ splash glaze”, “ painted in black under turquoise glaze”, “ blue and white”, “ moulded decoration under monochrome glaze”.
Conclusion
According to historical and geographical information, old Hormoz did not have a cohesive urban structure and consisted of two parts: the port where ships docked and few residential houses and urban facilities, and the other part where it is located. Rest and accommodation of travelers and businessmen who are located in the surrounding villages with different distances from the port from three kilometers to about 12 kilometers. The results of this research using archaeological research and excavations in historical sources and texts on the subject of the location of ancient Hormoz showed that the ancient site of Chekha in the southernmost part of Minab city according to its location, extent and time period were the remains of the old port of Hormoz. Saying that this area is located next to the largest estuary or bay located on the coast of Minab city, its area is estimated at about 40 hectares and based on studies conducted for the activity mentioned in the texts and its time period seems appropriate. Pottery was used from the first century AH to the ninth century AD, but its peak occurred in the Middle Ages. On this basis, we can present an image of old Hormoz, in which the ancient sites located within a radius of 12 km of the Chekha area are the remains of the same villages and hamlets that formed the residential part of the old city of Hormoz.
Acknowledgment
The authors feel obliged to express their gratitude to the anonymous reviewers of the journal who graciously accepted the task and enriched the content of the article with their constructive suggestions.
Observation Contribution
The authors of this paper pledge that this paper is the result of an original research and the results of other peoples researches have been used only citing the source.
Conflict of Interest
This article is a part of the MA dissertation of the first author, and the following authors have actively participated in the writing of this article as a supervisor and consultant.
One of the most important commercial ports of Iran in the Islamic period was the old Hormoz (Hormuoz). This port was part of Jiroft area in the early to middle centuries AH. In the fifth century AH and after the decline of the commercial prosperity of Siraf port, Hromouz was one of the most important and active maritime trade centers of Iran in the northern margin of the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman; And was associated with most of the important economic, commercial, and industrial centers of the ancient World. At the end of the seventh century AH, following the local conflicts and insecurity in the region, the establishment of Hormoz was transferred from the coast to an island in front of it called “Joron”. According to historical texts, after this relocation, the coastal port was called “Old Hormoz” and the island was called “New Hormoz”. The most important period of prosperity was the establishment of old Hormoz from the fifth century to the end of the seventh century AH. The aim of the present study is to identify and locate “old Hormoz” based on archaeological evidence and historical sources, and the research is on the question of where the port of old Hormoz was based on archaeological data and historical sources? For this purpose, basic information has been collected in two ways: field and documentary. Based on historical texts, the location of old Hormoz in the city of Minab can be traced. While there is no ancient city or site called old Hormoz on the coast of this city. Written sources, on the other hand, do not have an organized structure in old Hormoz, and the location of the port and the residence of the merchants are not located in the same place and are far apart. Based on this, it seems that among the 36 sites of the Islamic period that have been identified in the studies of the archaeological city of Minab, the site of “Chakha” next to the estuary (gulf) of Chakha has been the remains of the old port of Hormoz.
Keywords: Old Hormouz, Site of Chakha, Minab City, Archaeological Survey.
Introduction
Most scholars believe that old Hormuz was located in present-day Minab (le Strange, 2012: 341); But its exact limits are not clear. Various researchers have introduced areas such as Kohestak, Moghistan and Ebrahimi as well as Bandar Tiab as the place of old Hormoz (Vosoughi, 1384: 148; Ebrahimi, 1384: 45). A number of ancient geographers have pointed to something that could solve this problem, and in fact raises another issue: “The residence of merchants is located in the surrounding villages, about two Farsang from Hormuz.” (Istakhri, 2004: 99). Ibn Hawql has also mentioned the existence of merchants’ houses in the surrounding villages and diyats without mentioning the journeys (Ibn Hawql, 1987: 76-78); Moghaddasi (1385: 688) and the Author of Hudood al-Alam (1362: 127) also mentioned the location of the city of Hormuz in one Mil and a half Mile of the sea or the Great Sea, respectively. Considering this, it seems that old Hormoz had two parts: port and residential. As a result, finding the location of old Hormuz depends on finding its port. With this introduction, the main question of the present study is that based on archaeological data and historical sources, where was the port of old Hormoz? The study area has historically been called Hormouz, Hormoz and Minab. There are two views on the spelling of the word Hormuz; One is that it is composed of two parts: “Hour” means “estuary” or bay and “Mouz, Mogh” is the name of Mughestan province. The second view, which is derived from the word “Ourmazd” or “Hormozd” name of the Zoroastrian God (Nowruzi, 1390: 5-6). The date of construction of old Hormoz or Hormoz Barri (Minab) is attributed to Ardeshir Babakan (Saeedi, 1386: 45). Minab city with an area of 5135 square kilometers (statistical yearbook of Hormozgan province, 1396: 50) is located in the southeast of Hormozgan province and from the north with Rudan city and from the northwest with Bandar Abbas city. It is limited to Jask city from the southeast and Kerman province from the northeast.
Discussion
Based on archaeological evidence from 36 sites of the Islamic period in Minab city and analysis of the content of historical geographical sources about Hormoz, it seems that the Chakha or Chakha site in Bandzarak village in the central part of Minab city is more adaptable to the old Hormoz than other sites. Accordingly, first a general description of the Chekha site and then arguments for locating the old Hormoz port based on textual sources and matching them with archaeological evidence will be provided. Chakha site has been identified and introduced by Sarlak in the second season of archaeological studies of Minab plain in winter 1384 and spring 1386 (Sarlak, 1385). In 1390, Nowruzi in this area with the aim of determining frontage, began to excavate (Nowruzi, 1390). Although in his opinion, due to the monthly and daily tides of sea water and flooding of parts of the area, it is not possible to accurately determine the area and privacy of this area, but its approximate area can be estimated at about 40 hectares (Nowruzi, 2011). However, it is difficult to identify archaeological evidence during the day when seawater is low. This area is completely covered with coastal sand soil.
In addition to architectural evidence, artifacts such as bricks, coins, bones, various stones and pottery can be seen on the surface of the Chekha at high tide. The pottery fragments of this site are divided into two groups: unglazed (54 pieces) and glazed (180 pieces). Unglazed pottery samples are divided into two categories: “unadorned” and “decorated”. Unglazed, unadorned pottery in the Chekha area has a clay paste in a buff, red, or gray color range. With the exception of two handmade pieces, all parts in this group are spinning. The unglazed and simple type of pottery with gray paste, which has the largest number in this group of pottery, includes parts belonging to open-mouthed containers, laver, trays and lids. The glazed pottery pieces of the Chekha site also include various types, “ monochrome glazed”, “ monochrome glazed with carved decoration”, “ splash glaze”, “ painted in black under turquoise glaze”, “ blue and white”, “ moulded decoration under monochrome glaze”.
Conclusion
According to historical and geographical information, old Hormoz did not have a cohesive urban structure and consisted of two parts: the port where ships docked and few residential houses and urban facilities, and the other part where it is located. Rest and accommodation of travelers and businessmen who are located in the surrounding villages with different distances from the port from three kilometers to about 12 kilometers. The results of this research using archaeological research and excavations in historical sources and texts on the subject of the location of ancient Hormoz showed that the ancient site of Chekha in the southernmost part of Minab city according to its location, extent and time period were the remains of the old port of Hormoz. Saying that this area is located next to the largest estuary or bay located on the coast of Minab city, its area is estimated at about 40 hectares and based on studies conducted for the activity mentioned in the texts and its time period seems appropriate. Pottery was used from the first century AH to the ninth century AD, but its peak occurred in the Middle Ages. On this basis, we can present an image of old Hormoz, in which the ancient sites located within a radius of 12 km of the Chekha area are the remains of the same villages and hamlets that formed the residential part of the old city of Hormoz.
Acknowledgment
The authors feel obliged to express their gratitude to the anonymous reviewers of the journal who graciously accepted the task and enriched the content of the article with their constructive suggestions.
Observation Contribution
The authors of this paper pledge that this paper is the result of an original research and the results of other peoples researches have been used only citing the source.
Conflict of Interest
This article is a part of the MA dissertation of the first author, and the following authors have actively participated in the writing of this article as a supervisor and consultant.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Special Archeology
Received: 2022/06/11 | Accepted: 2022/09/16 | Published: 2023/12/3
Received: 2022/06/11 | Accepted: 2022/09/16 | Published: 2023/12/3
References
1. - آذریان، مهدی، (1392). «بررسی روشمند محوطۀ باستانی بندربتانه در شهرستان دیر استان بوشهر بهمنظور مکانیابی بندر تاریخی نجیروم». پایاننامۀ کارشناسیارشد باستانشناسی دانشگاه تربیتمدرس (منتشرنشده).
2. - ابراهیمی، قربانعلی، (1384). «هرمز-هرموز». مطالعات ایرانی، 4 (7): 50-39.
3. - ابنبطوطه، محمد بن عبدالله، (1376). سفرنامه. ترجمۀ محمدعلی موحد، بیجا: سپهرنقش.
4. - ابنحوقل، محمد، (1366). سفرنامۀ ابنحوقل (ایران در صورهالارض). ترجمۀ جعفر شعار، تهران: امیرکبیر.
5. - ابنخرداذبه، ابی القاسم عبیدالله بن عبدالله، (بیتا). المسالک و الممالک. بیروت: دار صادر.
6. - ابنرسته، ابی علی احمد بن عمر، (بیتا). الاعلاقالنفیسه. بیروت: دار صادر.
7. - ابنفقیه، ابیبکر محمد بن احمد الهمذانی، (1302). مختصر کتاب البدان. بیروت: دار صادر.
8. - ابوالفداء، اسماعیل بن علی، (1349). تقویمالبلدان. ترجمۀ عبدالمحمد آیتی، تهران: بنیاد فرهنگ ایران.
9. - ادریسی، ابی عبدالله محمد بن محمد بن عبدالله بن ادریس، (1409). نزههالمشتاق فی اختراقالآفاق. جلد الاول، بیروت: عالم الکتب.
10. - استخری، ابواسحق ابراهیم، (1340). مسالک و ممالک. بهکوشش: ایرج افشار، تهران: بنگاه ترجمه و نشر کتاب.
11. - استخری، ابی اسحق ابراهیم بن محمد الفارسی، (2004). المسالک و الممالک. تحقیق: محمد جابر عبد العال حینی، قاهره: الهییه العامه لقصور الثقافه.
12. - افشارسیستانی، ایرج، (1378). شناخت استان هرمزگان. تهران: انتشارات هیرمند.
13. - افضلالدینکرمانی، ابوحامد احمد بن حامد، (2536). عقد العلی للموقف الاعلی. تصحیح: علیمحمد عامرینائینی، تهران: چاپخانۀ فاروس ایران.
14. - افضلی، زینب؛ و خانمرادی، مژگان، (1400). «گونهشناسی و گاهنگاری سلادنهای بهدستآمده از بررسی باستانشناختی دشت سیرجان». پژوهشهای باستانشناسی ایران، 11 (28): 196-173.https://dx.doi.org/10.22084/NBSH.2020.21820.2152
15. - امیرانیپور، محجوبه؛ امیرحاجلو، سعید؛ و سقایی، سارا، (1397). «مطالعۀ سفال منقوش بدون لعاب (شبهپیشازتاریخ) در محوطههای دوران اسلامی دشت نرماشیر کرمان». مطالعات باستانشناسی پارسه، 2 (3): 165- 149. https://dx.doi.org/10.30699/PJAS.2.3.149
16. - امیرحاجلو، سعید؛ و سقایی، سارا، (1397). «گسترش و تنوع سفال دوران اسلامی در سکونتهای دشت نرماشیر کرمان». پژوهشهای باستانشناسی ایران، 8 (19): 226-207. https://dx.doi.org/10.30699/PJAS.2.3.149
17. - امیرحاجلو، سعید و صدیقیان، حسین (1399). «مطالعۀ باستانشناختی سفالهای دوران اسلامی محوطۀ قلعه سنگ؛ شهر قدیم سیرجان». پژوهشهای باستانشناسی ایران، 10 (25): 178-155. https://dx.doi.org/10.22084/NBSH.2020.18449.1896
18. - امیری، مصیب، (1391). «بررسی و مطالعۀ سفال دوران ساسانی و قرون اولیه اسلامی (مطالعۀ موردی محوطههای تاریخی استخر، شهر گور، بیشاپور، سرمشهد و دارابگرد)». رسالۀ دکتری باستانشناسی دانشگاه تربیتمدرس (منتشرنشده).
19. - بختآور، زهرا؛ خسروزاده، علیرضا؛ و شاطری، میترا، (1400). «آنالیزهای پتروگرافی مقاطع نازک سفالهای گونۀ منقوش بدون لعاب دوران اسلامی جزیرۀ قشم». پژوهشهای باستانشناسی ایران، 11 (28): 172-153. https://dx.doi.org/10.22084/NBSH.2020.20703.2061
20. - بلاذری، احمد بن یحیی، (1346). فتوحالبلدان بخش مربوط به ایران. ترجمۀ آذرنوش آذرتاش، تهران: انتشارات بنیاد فرهنگ ایران.
21. - توحیدی، فائق، (1390). فن و هنر سفالگری. چاپ هشتم، تهران: سمت.
22. - چوبک، حمیده، (1383). «تسلسل فرهنگی جازموریان- شهر قدیم جیرفت در دورۀ اسلامی». رسالۀ دکتری باستانشناسی دانشگاه تربیتمدرس (منتشرنشده).
23. - چوبک، حمیده، (1384). «گزارش سومین فصل کاوشهای باستانشناسی شهر دقیانوس- شهر کهن جیرفت». تهران: مرکز اسناد پژوهشکدۀ باستانشناسی، پژوهشگاه میراثفرهنگی و صنایعدستی (منتشرنشده).
24. - حافظابرو، (1370). زبده التواریخ. مقدمه و تعلیقات" سید کمال سیدجوادی، تهران، نشر نی.
25. - حدود العالم منالمشرق الیالمغرب (بینا)، (1362). بهکوشش: منوچهر ستوده، تهران: کتابخانه طهوری.
26. - خسروزاده، علیرضا، (1384). «گزارش مقدماتی بررسی باستانشناسی سواحل تنگه هرمز و دریای عمان در شهرستان میناب». تهران: مرکز اسناد پژوهشکدۀ باستانشناسی، پژوهشگاه میراثفرهنگی و صنایعدستی (منتشرنشده).
27. - خسروزاده، علیرضا؛ عالی، ابوالفضل؛ دارک؛ کنت؛ و وست، پرستمن، (1385). «کهور لنگر چینی، بندرگاهی اشکانی بر ساحل خلیجفارس». گزارشهای باستانشناسی 5: 75-55.
28. - سالنامۀ آماری استان هرمزگان، (1396). سازمان مدیریت و برنامهریزی استان هرمزگان. برگرفته از تارنمای «سازمان مدیریت و برنامهریزی استان هرمزگان»، نوشتهشده در تاریخ 16 اسفند 1397، به آدرس https://hormozgan.mporg.ir/
29. - سرلک، سیامک، (1382). «گزارش نخستین فصل بررسیهای باستانشناسی دشت میناب». تهران: مرکز اسناد پژوهشکدۀ باستانشناسی، پژوهشگاه میراثفرهنگی و صنایعدستی (منتشرنشده).
30. - سرلک، سیامک، (1385). «گزارش دومین فصل بررسیهای باستانشناسی دشت میناب». تهران: مرکز اسناد پژوهشکدۀ باستانشناسی، پژوهشگاه میراثفرهنگی و صنایعدستی (منتشرنشده).
31. - سرلک، سیامک، (1386). «گزارش مقدماتی نخستین فصل کاوشهای باستانشناسی در محوطۀ نخلابراهیمی (مغبریمی) شهرستان میناب- استان هرمزگان». تهران: مرکز اسناد پژوهشکدۀ باستانشناسی، پژوهشگاه میراثفرهنگی و صنایعدستی (منتشرنشده).
32. - سرلک، سیامک و عقیلی، شیرین (1392). «دشت میناب در دوران اسلامی، با اتکا به مدارک بهدستآمده از فاز نخست بررسیهای باستانشناختی دشت میناب». اثر، 62: 34-17.
33. - سعیدی، سهراب، (1386). فرهنگ مردم میناب. چاپ دوم، تهران: ائلشن.
34. - شاملو، غلامعلی، (1351). «کاوش در اطراف میناب». باستانشناسی و هنر ایران، 9 و 10: 128-124.
35. - شبانکارهای، محمد بن علی بن محمد، (1363). مجمعالانساب. میرهاشم محدث، تهران: امیرکبیر.
36. - صداقتی، محمد، (1391). «تعیین حدود مغستان خاستگاه ملوک هرموز». پژوهشهای تاریخی، 4 (3): 96-87.
37. - فیضی، مهسا؛ و مهجور، فیروز، (1393). «ورود نخستین سلادنهای گونۀ یوئه به ایران و الگوی پراکنش آن در مناطق ساحلی و داخلی ایران در قرون اولیه اسلامی». مطالعات باستانشناسی، 6 (2): 148-131.
38. - کاتببغدادی، قدامه بن جعفر، (1370). الخراج. ترجمۀ حسین قرچانلو، تهران: البرز.
39. - کامبخشفرد، سیفالله، (1389). سفال و سفالگری در ایران از ابتدای نوسنگی تا دوران معاصر. چاپ چهارم، تهران: ققنوس.
40. - کریمی، فاطمه؛ و کیانی، محمدیوسف، (1364). هنر سفالگری دورۀ اسلامی ایران. تهران: مرکز باستانشناسی ایران.
41. - کمالهاشمی، رضا، (1390). «مطالعه سفالهای دوران اسلامی مکشوف از شهر بلقیس». پایاننامۀ کارشناسیارشد باستانشناسی دانشگاه سیستان و بلوچستان (منتشرنشده).
42. - لسترنج، گای، (1390). جغرافیای تاریخی سرزمینهای خلافت شرقی. ترجمۀ محمود عرفان، چاپ هفتم، تهران: انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی.
43. - محمدیکلیان، الهام، (1393). «بررسی باستانشناسی سفالهای اسلامی دژشهر سمیران». پایاننامۀ کارشناسیارشد باستانشناسی دانشگاه سیستان و بلوچستان (منتشرنشده).
44. - محمدی، مریم؛ و شعبانی، محمد، (1395). «معرفی و تحلیل سفالهای دوران اسلامی محوطۀ زینوآباد- بهار، همدان». پژوهشهای باستانشناسی ایران، 6 (11): 150-135. https://dx.doi.org/10.22084/NBSH.2016.1744
45. - مستوفی قزوینی، حمدالله بن ابی بکر، (1381). نزههالقلوب. تصحیح: محمد دبیر سیاقی، قزوین: حدیث امروز.
46. - مسعودی، علی بن حسین، (1409). مروجالذهب و معادن الجواهر. جلد اول، تحقیق: یوسف اسعدداغر، قم: مؤسسۀ دارالهجره.
47. - مقدسی، ابوعبدالله محمد بن احمد، (1385). احسنالتقاسیم فی معرفۀالاقالیم. ترجمۀ علینقی منزوی، چاپ دوم، تهران: کومش.
48. - موسویحاجی، سیدرسول؛ توسلی، محمدمهدی؛ شیرازی، روحالله؛ و زور، مریم، (1392). «گونهشناختی و معرفی سفالینههای دوران اسلامی بلوچستان (مکران جنوبی). پژوهشهای باستانشناسی ایران، 3، (5): 140-121. https://nbsh.basu.ac.ir/issue_93_115.html
49. - نعمتی، محمدرضا؛ شراهی، اسماعیل؛ و صدرایی، علی، (1399). «پژوهشی در سفالینههای قالبزده محوطه ذلفآباد فراهان». پژوهشهای باستانشناسی ایران، 10 (26): 140-119. https://dx.doi.org/10.22084/NBSH.2020.14058.1612
50. - نوروزی، عباس، (1390). «گزارش مقدماتی گمانهزنی بهمنظور کاوش و تعیین عرصه و حریم محوطۀ خورچخا، میناب». تهران: مرکز اسناد پژوهشکدۀ باستانشناسی، پژوهشگاه میراثفرهنگی و صنایعدستی (منتشرنشده).
51. - وثوقی، محمدباقر، (1384). تاریخ خلیجفارس و ممالک همجوار. تهران: سمت.
52. - ویتکمب، دونالد، (1382). «سفالهای پیشازتاریخی دروغین از جنوب ایران». ترجمۀ محسن زیدی، باستان پژوهی، 11: 95-84.
53. - یاقوتحموی، ابنعبدالله، (1380). معجمالبلدان. ترجمۀ علینقی منزوی، جلد اول، تهران: سازمان میراثفرهنگی کشور (پژوهشگاه میراثفرهنگی و صنایعدستی (منتشرنشده).
55. - Abulfeda, I. ibn-ʿA., (1971). Taqwim al-Buldan (“A Sketch of the Countries”). translate by: Abdolmajid Ayati, not defind, Bonyad Farhang Iran (institute of Iranian culture). [In Persian]
56. - Afshar Sistani, I., (1990). Knowledge of the Hormozgan province. Tehran: Hirmand. [In Persian]
57. - Afzal al-Din Kerman., (2536). Eqd al-ʿolā. corrected by: Alimohamad Ameri Naeeni, Tehran: Chapkhaneh Faros Iran. [In Persian]
58. - Afzali, Z. & Khanmoradi, M., (2021). “Typology and chronology of Celadons from archaeological surveies of Sirjan plain”. Archaeological reaserch of Iran, 28: 173-196. https://dx.doi.org/10.22084/NBSH.2020.21820.2152 [In Persian]
59. - Amiranipour, M.; Amirhajloo, S. & Saqaee, S., (2019). “Study of psodo pottery in islamic sites of Narmashi plain, Kerman province”. Parse journal of archaeolgical studies, 2 (3): 149-165. https://dx.doi.org/10.30699/PJAS.2.3.149 [In Persian]
60. - Amirhajloo, S. & Saqaee, S., (2019). “Distribution, Continuity and Diversity of Islamic Ceramics in the Settlements of Narmashir Plain”. Pazhohesh-ha-ye Bastanshenasi Iran, 19: 207-226. https://dx.doi.org/10.30699/PJAS.2.3.149 [In Persian]
61. - Amirhajloo, S. & Sedighian, H., (2020). “Archaeological Research on Islamic Pottery from Qal´eh Sang, Old Sirjan (Kerman Province, Iran)”. Pazhohesh-ha-ye Bastanshenasi Iran, 25: 155-178. https://dx.doi.org/10.22084/NBSH.2020.18449.1896 [In Persian]
62. - Amiri, M., (2013). “Study of pottery of Sasanid era and early Islamic centuries (case study: ancient sites of Estakhr, Gour, Bishapour, and Darabgard)”. Phd thesis, Tarbiat Modares university. (unpublished) [In Persian]
63. - Azarian, M., (2014). “Archaeological systematic survay of ancient site Bandar-e Batane in sity of Dayer, Boshehr province”. MA dissertation, Tarbiat Modares University, (unpublished) [In Persian]
64. - Bakhtavar, Z.; Shateri, M. & Khosrowzade, A., (2021). “The Petrographic Analysis of Thin Sections on the Non-Glazed Painted Pottery Ceramics of Islamic Era in Qeshm Island”. Pazhohesh-ha-ye Bastanshenasi Iran, 28: 153-172. https://dx.doi.org/10.22084/NBSH.2020.20703.2061 [In Persian]
65. - Balādhurī, A. ibn-Y. ibn-J., (1968). Kitab Futuh al-Buldan. Translate by: Azatsh Azarnoush, Notdefined, Entesharat Bonyad-e Farhang-e Iran. [In Persian]
66. - Carter, R., (2011). “Ceramics of the Qatar National Museum’’. Oxford Brookes Archaeology and Heritage (OBAH)P: 1- 269.
67. - Choubak, H., (2005). “Cultural sequence of Jazmourian – shahr-e Qadim-e Jiroft in Islamic period”. PhD dissertation, Tarbiat Modares university, (unpublished) [In Persian]
68. - Choubak, H., (2006). “Report of third season of archaeological excavations of Shahr-e Daqyanous – Shahr-e Kohan-e Jiroft”. Archive of Iranian center for archaeological reaserch (unpublished) [In Persian]
69. - Ebrahimi, Gh., (2006). “Hormoz – Hormoz”. Journal of Iranian studies, 4(7): 39-50. [In Persian]
70. - Feyzi, M. & Mahjour, F., (2015). “Entrence of first Yue type celadons I Iran”. Motaleate Bastanshenasi, 6 (2): 131-48. [In Persian]
71. - Hafiz-i Abru., (1993). Zobde al- Tawarikh. Corrected by: Seyyed Kamal Seyyed Javadi, Nashr-e Ney. [in persian]
72. - Mustawfi Qazvini, H., (2003). Nuzhat al-Qulub (“Hearts’ Bliss”). Corrected by: Mohamad Dabirsiaqi, Hadis-e Emrouz. [In Persian]
73. - Ḥudūd al-ʿĀlam min al-Mashriq ilá l-Maghrib, (1983). by: Effort Manocher Sotodeh, Ketabkhaneh Tahouri. [In Persian]
74. - Ibn-e Batutta, R., (The Travels). Translate by: Mohmadali Movahed, notdefind, Sepehr-e Naqsh. [In Persian]
75. - Ibn-e Howqal., (1986). Ṣūrat al-’Arḍ. Translated by: Jafar shoar, Tehran: Amirkabir. [In Persian]
76. - Istakhri, A. I. I. ibn-M. al-F., (1962). “Routes of the Realms”. Corrected by: Iraj Afshar, Tehran: Bongah- Tarjomeh Ketab. [In Persian]
77. - KamalHashemi, R., (2012). “Study of Islamic potteries from city of Bilqis”. MA dissertation, University of Sistan & Balochistn. [In Persian]
78. - Kambakhsfard, S., (2000). The pottery in Iran from the beggening of eolithic to contemporary. Tehran: ghoghnoos. [In Persian]
79. - Karimi, F. & Kiani, M. Y., (1985). The Iranian art of pottery inIslamik era. Tehran: Center of Archaeology of Iran. [In Persian]
80. - Katib al-Baghdadi, Q. ibn-J., (1992). The book of the land tax. Translated by: Hoseyn Qarechanlou, Alborz. [In Persian]
81. - Kennet, D., (2004). ‘’Sasanian and Islamic Pottery from Ras al- Khaimah (eBook version)’’. Classification, chronology and analysis of trade in the Western Indian Ocean: 1- 175.
82. - Khosrozadeh, A.; Ali, A.; Kennet, D. & Seth, P., (2007). Kahor Langarchini, an Arsacid port on the shore of Persian Gulf. Archaeological report, Iranian center for archaeological reaserch. [In Persian]
83. - Khosrozadeh, A.., (2004). “Preliminary report of archaeological survey in Hormoz strait shore and Oman sea shore in Minab”. Archive of Iranian center for archaeological research. (unpublished) [In Persian]
84. - Le Strange, G., (2008). The lands of eastern Caliphate. Translated by: Mahmod Erfan, Tehran: Entesharat-e Elmi va Farhangi. [In Persian]
85. - Mahjor, F.; Ebrahiminia, M. & Sediqiqan, H., (2012). “Archaeologycal survey of Islamic potteries of Nachir Khanlaq site of Rey”. Archaeological Studies, 2: 173-192. [In Persian]
86. - Maqdisi, M. ibn-A., (2007). The best division for the knowledge of the provinces (Ahsan al -taqasim fi maarafat al-aqalim). Translated by: Alinaqi Monzavi, Komesh. [In Persian]
87. - Mohammadi, M. & Shabani, M., (2017). “Analysis of Islamic potteries of ancient of ZeynoAbad –Bahar, Hamadn”. Pazhohesh-ha-ye Bastanshenasi Iran, 11: 135-150. https://dx.doi.org/10.22084/NBSH.2016.1744 [In Persian]
88. - Mosavai Haji, S. R.; Tavasoli, M. M.; Shirazi, R. & Zor, M., (2014). “Introducing ahd typology of Islamic potteries from Baluchistan region, Mokran south”. Pazhohesh-ha-ye Bastanshenasi Iran, 5: 121-140. https://nbsh.basu.ac.ir/issue_93_115.html [In Persian]
89. - Nemati, M. R.; Sharahi, E. & Sadraei, A., (2021). “Research on molded pottery in Zolfabad site of Farahan”. Pazhohesh-ha-ye Bastanshenasi Iran, 26: 119-140. https://dx.doi.org/10.22084/NBSH.2020.14058.1612 [In Persian]
90. - Nowrozi, A, (2011). “Preliminary report of excavation for determining frontage of Khor Chakha, Minab”. Organization of cultural heritage, tourism and handicraft of Hormozgan province. (unpublished) [In Persian]
91. - Priestman, S. M. N., (2005). “Settlement a Ceramics in Southern Iran: An Analysis of the Sasanian and Islamic periods in the Williamson Collection’’. Department of Archaeology, University of Durham: 1- 426.
92. - Priestman, S. M. N., (2013). “A Quantitative Archaeoiogical Analysis of Ceramic Exchange in the Persian Gulf and Western Indian Ocean, AD c.400- 1275’’. Centre for Maritime Archaeology, Department of Archaeoligy School of Humanities: 1- 731.
93. - Saeedi, S., (2008). Culture of Minab’s people. Tehran: Aelshan. [In Persian]
94. - Sarlak, S. & Aqili, Sh., (2014). “Minab plain in Islamic period”. Asar, 62: 17-34. [In Persian]
95. - Sarlak, S., (2000). “Report of the first season of archaeological surveys of Minab plain”. Iranian center for archaeological research. (unpublished) [In Persian]
96. - Sarlak, S., (2001). “Report of the second season of archaeological surveys of Minab plain”. Iranian center for archaeological research. (unpublished) [In Persian]
97. - Sarlak, S., (2008). “Preliminary report of the first season of archaeological excavations on Nakhl-Ebrahimi site Minab city”. Organization of cultural heritage, tourism and handicraft of Hormozgan province. (unpublished) [In Persian]
98. - Sarlak, S., (2009). “Preliminary report of the second season of archaeological excavations on Nakhl-Ebrahimi site Minab city”. Organization of cultural heritage, tourism and handicraft of Hormozgan province. (unpublished) [In Persian]
99. - Sasaki, H. & Sasaki, T., (2012). “Trade ceramics from East Asia to the Arabian Peninsula”, In: Fifty years of Emirates archaeology, ed. By Daniel T. Potts & Peter Hellyer, Ajman UAE: Rashid Printers & Stationers LLC: 224- 233.
100. - Sedaqati, M., (2013). “Determining of limit of Moghestan”. Historical research, period, 4 (3): 87-96. [In Persian]
101. - Shabankarehiy, M. ibn-A., (1985). Majmaa al Ansab. Corrected by: MirHAshem Mohades, Amir Kabir. [In Persian]
102. - Statistical yearbook of Hormozgan province, 2018. https://hormozgan.mporg.ir/. [In Persian]
103. - Towhidi, F., (2010). Technique and art of pottery. Samt. [In Persian]
104. - Vothoghi, M. B., (2005). The history of Persian Gulf and neighbor lands. Tehran: Samt. [In Persian]
105. - Whitcomb, D., (2004). “Pseudo prehistories potteries from south of Iran”. Translated by: Mohsen zeydi, Bastan Pajouhi, 11: 84-95. [In Persian]
106. - Yaqut Hamavi., (2002). Dictionary of Countries (Mu’jam al-Buldān). Translated by: AlinaqiMonzavi, book 1, Tehran: Organization of cultural heritage of Iran. [In Persian]
107. - Yaqut Hamavi., (2014). Seleced of al-Mushtarak. Translated by: Mohammad Parvin Gonabadi, Tehran: Amir Kabir. [In Persian]
108. - Zhang, R., (2018). “Chinese Ceramic Trade Withdrawal from the Indian Ocean: Archaeological Evidence from South Iran”. Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology: 73- 92.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |