fa مطالعۀ دست‌افزارهای سنگی محوطه‌های دورۀ مس‌وسنگ شرق استان کردستان تخصصی باستان‌شناسی Special Archeology پژوهشي Research <div style="text-align: justify;">در این نوشتار مصنوعات سنگی به‌دست‌آمده از سه محوطه در بخش شرقی استان کردستان مورد مطالعه قرار می‌گیرد. دورۀ مس‌و‌‌سنگ با سنت‌های سفالی متفاوت نسبت به دورۀ قبل در زاگرس نمایان می‌شود؛ این تغییرات در مصنوعات سنگی علاوه‌بر ابزارهای متنوع عمدتاً در ظهور گونه‌ای از تیغه‌های بلند و تیغه‌های داس بسیار منظم &nbsp;و استاندارد ظاهر می‌شود. با توجه به فراوانی یافته‌ها، پرسش اصلی در این مقاله این است که فناوری و کارکرد ابزارها در دورۀ مس‌و‌‌سنگ چگونه بوده است؟ این مطالعه نشان می‌دهد که در این دوره برای جدا کردن برداشته از سنگ‌مادر، در مراحل اولیه از شیوۀ ضربۀ مستقیم با چکش سخت و در مراحل بعدی ابزارسازی از شیوۀ فشاری استفاده شده است. هم‌چنین تیغه‌های بلند و تیغه‌های داس به‌دست‌آمده، با وجود این‌که از منظر فن تولید، شیوۀ فشاری تداوم دورۀ نوسنگی زاگرس است؛ اما ازنظر ابعاد و هم‌چنین نسبت طول تیغه‌ها به عرض آن‌ها در یک طبقۀ جدید که شاخصی نویافته برای دورۀ مس‌و‌‌سنگ است، معرفی می‌شوند. وجود ابسیدین و نبود شواهدی از ساخت تیغه‌های داس از نوعی چخماق تیره‌رنگ خالص، احتمال ساخت تیغه‌های تولید‌شده از این گونه در کارگاه‌های تخصصی خارج از محوطه و وارداتی بودن آن‌ها به این محوطه‌‌ها را نشان می‌دهد. نتایج نشان می‌دهند که شروع ساخت تیغه‌های داس منظم از دورۀ مس‌و‌‌سنگ جدید آغاز می‌شود و مهارت ساخت این ابزارها بدون‌شک مرتبط با وجود افرادی است که تخصص‌ و توانایی خاصی برای این تولیدات داشته و این ابزارها را در مناطق خاصی توزیع می‌کرده؛ چراکه کمترین دورریز از نوع چخماق مرغوب این تیغه‌ها در محوطه‌ها یافت نشده است. درحالی‌که اغلب دورریزها متعلق به گونه‌های سنگ چخماقی هستند که در آبرفت رودخانه متصل به محوطه است.&nbsp;</div> <div><div></div></div> <div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Abstract</strong><br> This paper will focus on Lithic assemblages from three sites in the eastern part of Kurdistan province. The Chalcolithic period appears with different pottery tradi-tions than the earlier period in the Zagros, these changes appear mainly in the emergence of a variety of long blades and very regular and standard sickle blades. Due to the importance and lack of studies on the Chalcolithic Lithic, the main ques-tion in this article is what was the technology and function of the tools in the Chal-colithic period? The results show the technology of direct percussion with a hard hammer used to in the primary stages of Chalcolithic, and in the late phase, in addi-tion to the earlier method, the pressure technique has also been used to construction of long blades and sickle blade. Also, long blades and sickle blades, in terms of production technique, are continued in the Neolithic period in the Zagros, but in terms of dimensions as well as the ratio of blade length to width in a new class which is a new indicator for the Chalcolithic period. The results show that the con-struction of regular sickle blades begins in the late Chalcolithic phase. The skill of making tools is undoubtedly related to exist people who have special ability for these products, and they have distributed these tools in certain areas; because the least waste of high-quality flint of these blades has not been found in the sites. While most of the debris belong to raw material that are easily accessible in the riv-erbed.<br> <strong>Keywords:</strong> East of Kurdistan, Chalcolithic Period, Lithic Artifact.<br> <br> <strong>Introduction</strong><br> The stone artifacts in this study are the result of excavations in Tepe Gheshlagh (Motarjem & Sharifi, 2015; Sharifi & Motarjem, 2018), Tepe Kalanan (Saedmoucheshi, 1390), and Golali (Saedmoucheshi, 1398) in Kurdistan province (Figure 1). In this region, the chronology of Tepe Gheshlagh, one of the key site in the Chalcolithic period that shows the sequence of this period (Motarjem & Sharifi, 2014). On the other hand, all samples of artifacts obtained in intact layer and with absolute chronology (Table 1). The Chalcolithic period in the Central Zagros has been studied by many scholars (see Young & Levine, 1974; Abdi, 2002 & 2003; Henrickson, 1983 & 1985), and most studies have focused on pottery and other data. Various sites in this area such as Godin (Young, 1969), Sehgabi (Young & Levine, 1974) have been explored before the Islamic Revolution of Iran and there isn&rsquo;t an independent report on the tech-nical classification of stone tools. Study of Lithic artifacts in the Cen-tral Zagros including superficial study of Tepe Ban-Asyab (Bernbek et al., 2011), superficial study of Hersin (Mortensen & Smith, 1977), Chogha-golan and Towe Khushkeh sites in Islamabad plain (Abdi, 2002). Also, the study of lithic tools tradition in the sixth and fifth millennium BC in the Zagros gets limited to (Kozlowski, 1999; Nishiaki, 2013, 2019) and west of Kurdistan (Hariryan et al., 2021). In this regard, the study of stylistic differences in terms of technology, typology, and access to sources of raw material, as well as trade of some stones such as obsidian is momentous. Therefore, research questions include the following: (1) what is the basis of the tool-making tradition in East Kurdistan? And (2) Due to socio-economic complexities that occurred during the Chalcolithic period, what changes have taken place in the Lithic artifacts? The hy-pothesis of this research is that the Post-Mlefaatian tradition of tool making has been prevalent in this region. In fact, the purpose of introducing and analyzing of Chalcolithic Lithic is paying attention to them as cultural data that an important role in cultural communication and interactions.<br> <br> <strong>Conclusion</strong><br> The study of stone artifacts during the Chalcolithic period and beyond has never been seriously considered in Iranian archeology, this is due to the prevalence of evolutionary archeology. This approach goes back to the Serialization and connec-tion of cultural transformation circles to each other, without an explanatory and an-alytical approach to the lifestyle and cultural exchanges and human dynamism in the habitat. Discussions that were considered only after the spread of new archeol-ogy. The study of stone artifacts in this study shows that the insignificant quantity of tools in the early and middle phases of Chalcolithic, It shows the focus of the residents of this area on livestock. Because the Habitat around Tepe Gheshlagh and Kalanan are mainly steppe and less fertile. In the late phase, the production of Lith-ic tools increases, especially the examples related to grain harvesting, which indi-cates a kind of more attention to crop production. This leads to decline of livestock or the increase of population in the region and even familiarity with new cultivation methods. In the late Chalcolithic, this region has Cultural Horizon with the late Obeid, early Uruk and the Sabz period of Dehloran and Khuzestan. At this time, agriculture based on irrigation has been proposed on southern region such as Susa and Dehloran. In these periods, all the tools used in agriculture, focused on Lithic tools and implements including plowing tools, sickles, mortars and hand tools. In fact, the construction of practical tools, the use of different raw materials, and the interpretation of regular and long sickle blades represent an advanced and evolving technology. The produce of regular sickle blades from high quality stone, disap-pearance of small scrapers (trapezoidal and triangular) and the limitation of serrated tools are the most important changes in this period compared to the Neolithic peri-od.&nbsp;<br> Lithic assemblages during the 6th and 5th millennia BCE in the Zagros is known as Post-Mlefaatian tradition (Kozlowski, 1999). The use of pressure Debitage tech-nique to produce long blades and sickle elements is one of the most significant fea-tures of this tradition. In the Post-Mlefaatian, the length of the blades increases. In East Kurdistan, we are faced with two technologies for making stone tools, (1) The use of direct percussion for primarily stage of removing, and (2) The use of pres-sure technology for construction of sickle blades. We have a limited number of long blades in Gheshlagh and Gelali sites, but the construction of these blades, like other regions of the Zagros, shows the use of the Post-Mlefaatian tradition in this region.<br> It is probable that after 3 to 4 thousand years of domestication of devolving of wheat stem compared to other species such as Emmer and Einkorn of the Neolithic period, In order to harvest, thicker and stronger blades need to create. The produc-tion of thicker blades in this period has been a technical adaptive response to this need. Hence, the discussion over the assumption about the prevalence of irrigation in the Chalcolithic period, even to a limited extent, has led to change in Lithic tools production related to agriculture, especially sickle blades. On the other hand, issues such as the formation of full-time or part-time expert groups, access to high-quality flint mines for proper production, distribution and exchange are raised. As men-tioned in the discussion, there is no evidence of regular sickle blades construction on the site, in the eastern Kurdistan. On the other hand, presence of obsidian in Gheshlagh and Kalanan sites show continuation of the old distribution network of the nearest neighbor to the far regions in eastern Kurdistan. The presence of obsidi-an and lack of evidence for making sickle blades from dark flint, indicate the pos-sibility of making blades produced from this species in specialized workshops out-side the site and their import to these areas.</div> شرق استان کردستان, دورۀ مس‌و‌‌سنگ, مصنوعات سنگی. East of Kurdistan, Chalcolithic Period, Lithic Artifact. 7 26 http://journal.richt.ir/mbp/browse.php?a_code=A-10-235-2&slc_lang=fa&sid=1 Hamid Hariryan حمید حریریان hamid.hariryan@gmail.com No PhD Student in Archeology, Department of Archeology, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Bu Ali Sina University, Hamadan, Iran. دانشجوی دکتری باستان‌شناسی، گروه باستان‌شناسی، دانشکدۀ هنر و معماری،دانشگاه بوعلی‌سینا، همدان، ایران Abbas Motarjem عباس مترجم motarjem@basu.ac.ir Yes Associate Professor, Department of Archeology, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Bu Ali Sina University, Hamadan, Iran. دانشیار گروه باستان‌شناسی، دانشکدۀ هنر و معماری، دانشگاه بوعلی‌سینا، همدان، ایران Amir Saed-Mucheshi امیر ساعدموچشی saedmucheshi@gmail.com No Assistant Professor Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran استادیار دانشگاه پیام‌نور، تهران، ایران