fa نگاهی باستان‌شناختی به ساختارهای تدفینی گورستان خانقاه گیلوان خلخال، اردبیل تخصصی باستان‌شناسی Special Archeology پژوهشي Research <div style="text-align: justify;">گورستان خانقاه گیلوان در دامنۀ غربی کوه‌های تالش و در 60 کیلومتری جنوب‌شرقی خلخال بین روستاهای گیلوان و خانقاه قرار دارد و بخشی از شهرستان خلخال در استان اردبیل است. گورستان خانقاه در طی عملیات احداث جاده در روستای خانقاه در سال 1385 ه&zwj;.ش.، شناسایی شد. با توجه به تاریخ‌گذاری انجام‌شده، این گورستان از عصرمفرغ میانی تا عصرآهن I و II و دورۀ پارتیان مورد استفاده بوده است، اما شواهدی در استفاده از آن در عصرمفرغ جدید در دست نیست؛ با این وجود شیوه‌های تدفینی یکسانی در عصرآهن I و II وجود داشته است. براین‌اساس، پرسش بنیادی این خواهد بود، مرحلۀ اولیه استفاده از گورستان خانقاه گیلوان ازطریق طبقه‌بندی، گونه‌شناسی و مطالعات مقایسه‌ای سفال مربوط به چه دوره یا دوره‌هایی است؟ هم‌چنین با توجه به اشیاء قرار داده‌شده در گورها و انرژی مصرف‌شده در ساختار قبور می‌توان تمایزی در بین افراد تدفین‌شده در گورها قائل شد؟ تشابهات سفالی با فرهنگ‌های منطقۀ قفقاز جنوبی در مرحلۀ گذار از عصرمفرغ قدیم به مفرغ میانی به ما اجازه می‌دهد مرحلۀ آغازین استفاده از این گورستان را تا اواخر هزارۀ سوم پیش‌ازمیلاد، عقب ببریم. در پژوهش پیش‌رو، ضمن معرفی گورهایی که به این دوره اختصاص یافته است، با تکیه بر طبقه‌بندی، گونه‌شناسی و مطالعات تطبیقی سفال، گاه‌نگاری پیشنهادی ارائه شده است. بر این‌اساس از مجموع ظروف به‌دست‌آمده از 11 گور تعداد 148 ظرف سفالی در این راستا مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. شیوۀ پژوهش از نوع توصیفی-تطبیقی است و نتایج بر اساس مطالعات مقایسه‌ای مورد تحلیل قرار گرفته است؛ هم‌چنین در ادامه با توجه به اشیاء تدفینی و ساختار قبور وجود تفاوت در موقعیت افراد دفن‌شده در قبرستان بحث شده است.&nbsp;</div> <div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Abstract</strong><br> Khānqah-E Gilvan cemetery is located on the western skirt of the MT. Talesh approximately 60 km southeast Khalkhal. The cemetery lies between the villages of Gilvan and Khānqah, and is part of the administrative district of Khalkhal in Ardabil province.The cemetery was discovered in 2006 during the road construction project in village of Khānqah. It has been in use from Middle Bronze Age to Iron Age I, II and Parthian Period after a centuries of gap; it is not still clear whether the cemetery was used during the Late Bronze Age or not, but the funerary practices in the Iron Age I, II were continued. Pottery similarities with ceramics from the Middle Bronze Age allows us to suggest that the initial using phase of the cemetery can be attributed back to the last quarter of the 3rd millennium BC(Zabanband et al., 2021: forthcoming) In this research, our focus is mainly on the graves related to initial phase of cemetery. During the Middle Bronze Age of Khānqah-e Gilvan, a variety of funerary practices along with types of tombs such as kurgan, pit grave, etc. unknown in other Iranian northwestern sites such as Geoy Tepe, Dinkhah Tepe, can be seen. The funerary practices of the tombs discovered in the cemetery are more or less homogeneous. It is probable to reconstruct funerary behavior of these populations.The diameter of the 7 kurgans excavated at the Gilavan burial site varies roughly 2 to 5 m. circle stone alignment is a common feature these burials, that is carefully laid out, heaps of stone (pebble/slab&hellip;)covered the pit burials. In addition to a detailed description of the graves, we will also try to point out some of the hierarchical features of the cemetery according to structure and grave association of the tombs,<br> <strong>Keywords:</strong> Khānqah-E Gilvan Cemetery, Kurgan, Structure, Social Position, Grave Association.&nbsp;<br> <br> <strong>Introduction</strong><br> By the Middle Bronze Age, there were two different painted pottery traditions in Urmia lake basin. The first tradition was black painted red ware with (monochrome) and black& red painted on white or polychrome pottery, as been described as &ldquo;Urmia Ware&rdquo; (Pl. 1). The chronology of this pottery tradition has primarily been based on the evidence from level VIB at Haftavan Tepe. This type of pottery was firstly found levels C&D at Geoy Tepe. Four stone-built/cist graves associated with Geoy Tepe settlement of this period have recognized (Brown 1951: 100-107) It suggests that perhaps it might be more accurate to assign these tombs to late VIB. Tomb B which has assigned to period D by Dyson, contains only late VIB pottery which indicates that all tombs are contemporary, and belong to Geoy C. This conclusion is supported by the structure of the tombs; tombs A, B are very similar (Edwards 1986: 60-61, Dyson 1968: 16-17). three stone-built tombs, together with a child burial and three simple inhumations, are the only excavated burial remains of the Dinkha IVC and D levels yet On the basis of C 14 dates (building level) and typological parallels, the tomb B10a B27 can be placed in the 17th to 16th century B.C. Both the Habur Ware assemblage and the metal objects in tomb described here demonstrate Dinkha&rsquo;s ties to the west in the Old Assyrian and Babylonian periods (Robinson 1991; 1994)<br> In the last decade, archaeological excavations in Khānqah cemetery provide more knowledge on region&rsquo;s MBA and identify a variety of funerary practices and grave types during the Middle Bronze Age and Iron Age I, II of northwestern Iran. According to artefacts related to graves, and the structure of graves, these two-mortuary treatment to what extent can reflect status distinctions among people buried in this cemetery?&nbsp;<br> <br> <strong>The Khānqah-e Gilvan Cemetery</strong><br> Khānqah cemetery (48̊ 49ʹ 46ʺ E and 37 17ʹ 39ʺN; pl. 2) is located on the west of the Khānqah village and 60 km south east of the Khalkhal town. From a geographical perspective, Khalkhal is a mountainous region which is surrounded by the Talesh, Bozquş and Qarāvol dagh from the east, west, and south respectively. Steep terrain of these mountaines region, especially in summer, supply livestock forage production.<br> The graves in this cemetery are categorized in two groups; a) Kurgans with a Funerary Pit: The burial in these kurgans was funerary pit in shape as the dead person had buried after digging a pit. The dimension of funerary pit was depended on how the corpse is located in the grave as well as the space needed to put the burial goods. After the top of the graves were sealed, then, it filled with a 77-431cm layer of stony soil prior to the surrounding circular stone alignment precinct were built. The height of these kurgans were approximately 61-212 cm. Over time, the mound of kurgans has lost its height and the scatter of stone mounds has formed locus No.4.; surrounding circular stone alignment precinct of graves were identified inside this location and its size is varying from 2 to 4 m in diameter. The existence of sherds, complete containers and animal bones whitin the soil on the graves showes that it mighte be &nbsp;some sacrifices had been distributed among the participants who attended in the burying. 29, 30, 32, 37, 38, 39 and 41 are placed in this group.<br> b) Pit graves: On these grave types, there is a pit grave covered with mass of rubble. It seems that this embankment was a signal clarifying the location of grave during the past. 14, 24 and 40 are classified in this group. &nbsp;&nbsp;<br> <br> <strong>Discussion</strong><br> According to formal parallels with ceramic assemblages of the Early kurgans and Middle Bronze Age cultures, the burial site of Khānqah can be dated from the 3rd quarter of the 3rd millennium B.C.&nbsp;<br> A Hiatus in the Late Bronze Age- to the 1st half of the 1st millennium B.C. Among excavated burials the wealth displayed by 30 and 32 kurgans reveal high social achieved status of their owners. This hierarchy also emphasized by extra efforts in the tomb construction. &nbsp;<br> <br> <strong>Conclusion</strong><br> According to artefacts related to graves, the tradition of placing pottery vessels along with deceased was a common practice of cemetery, even if there was no skeleton. A greater quantity and higher quality of burial goods found in 14, 30 and 32 tombs show high status individuals were buried with vast amounts of funerary objects. The wealth displayed by these graves reveals high social achieved status of their owners. This hierarchy also emphasized by extra efforts in the tomb construction (30,32) and wealth (14) (Brown 1971: 29). ). Moreover, there were some forms of funerary behaviors in 30 grave; including animal and secondary burials, presumably both of them are related to status or wealth; another explanation may be this, due to the lack of settlement site adjacent to cemetery, it is possible to propose that the mobile groups buried their dead somewhere else in the vicinity of site and in return carried them which could indicate the significance of cemetery in this relatively long period. Brown (1981) points out that the buried people with a higher social status, more likely to be manipulated after death, and those with lower status receive the least manipulate. It is worth mentioning that in 30 multiple grave, the primary burial is in its anatomical position and is not displaced to contain secondary burial which could indicates individual social prestige. There are few differences in wealth and effort in other graves which represent little positional stratification among them. The presence of copper pins in the graves buried people more likely to be the standard of the period. There is no peculiar pattern in distribution of other metal artefacts depending on the location of the pins, it seems that they were a means of keeping clothes (Massa et al. 2017) found around the skull and shoulder</div> گورستان خانقاه گیلوان, کورگان‌های قدیم, عصرمفرغ میانی, ظروف نوع اورمیه. Khānqah-E Gilvan Cemetery, Kurgan, Structure, Social Position, Grave Association.  107 135 http://journal.richt.ir/mbp/browse.php?a_code=A-10-336-1&slc_lang=fa&sid=1 Nasrin Zaban Band نسرین زبان‌بند nasrin.zabanband85@gmail.com No Ph.D in Archaeology , Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Iran. دکتری باستان‌شناسی، گروه باستان‌شناسی، دانشکدۀ علوم اجتماعی، دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی، اردبیل، ایران. Reza Rezaloo رضا رضالو r_rezaloo@uma.ac.ir Yes Professor, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Iran استاد گروه باستان‌شناسی، دانشکدۀ علوم اجتماعی، دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی، اردبیل، ایران Ardeshir Javanmardzadeh اردشیر جوانمردزاده javanmardardeshir@gmail.com No Associate Professor, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Iran. دانشیار گروه باستان‌شناسی، دانشکدۀ علوم اجتماعی، دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی، اردبیل، ایران. Karim Hajizadeh کریم حاجی‌زاده k_hajizadeh@uma.ac.ir No Associate Professor, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Iran. دانشیار گروه باستان‌شناسی، دانشکدۀ علوم اجتماعی، دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی، اردبیل، ایران.