Tappeh Hegmataneh and Ancient Ecbatana; Rémy Boucharlat

NĀMVARNĀMEH PAPERS IN HONOUR OF MASSOUD AZARNOUSH Editors Hamid Fahimi and Karim Alizadeh IranNegar Publica on Tehren, 2012 NĀMVARNĀMEH; PAPERS IN HONOUR OF MASSOUD AZARNOUSH Edited by: Hamid Fahimi and Karim Alizadeh Persian edi ng: Mehran Gholami, Hamid Fahimi and Elahe Salar English edi ng: Susan Pollock Abstracts translated by: Mehrdad Saeedi, Hamid Fahimi and Mozhgan Seyedin Control and execu ve by: Hamid Fahimi and Mehran Gholami Design and layout by: Vahid Rouzbahani Technical supervisor: Mohammad Bagheri Borouj and Mehran Gholami Published by: IranNegar ISBN: 978-600-92906-1-1 Iranian na onal bibliography number: 2662439 Turn of first print: Autumn 2012 Price: 50 $/ 38 € (Online purchase: www.adinehbook.ir) In collabora on with: Ganjine-ye Naghsh-e Jahan Address: No. 7, Apt. 7, Janna Alley, Azadi St., Enghelab Sq., Tehran, Iran. Tel. +98 21 66907428. “P. O. BOX of Ganjine-ye Naghsh-e Jahan: 13145-431, Tehran, Iran” www.ganj.ir “All rights reserved by Ganjine-ye Naghsh-e Jahan Co. Ltd” Contents 5 9 13 Foreword; Hamid Fahimi and Karim Alizadeh Remembrances; Farhang Azarnoush A Brief Review of the Life of Massoud Azarnoush; Roya Tajbakhsh and Hamid Fahimi Papers in English 19 31 43 55 69 79 95 107 113 119 131 139 153 163 167 177 185 The Arsanjan Prehistoric Project and the Significance of Southern Iran in Human History; Akira Tsuneki Commensality and Social Life from the Neolithic to the Bakun Period; Susan Pollock Discon nui es and Con nui es: Construc ng a Chronology from the Evidence at Neolithic Tol-e Bashi, Fars; Reinhard Bernbeck Pa erns of Change during the Transi onal Process from Chalcolithic Cultures to the Bronze Age in Northeastern Iran, Based on Po ery Studies; Emran Garazhian The Dead in 5th Millennium BC Darre-ye Bolaghi: First Evidence on Bakun-Period Burial Rites from Southern Iran; Barbara Helwing, Kirsi O. Lorentz and Mozhgan Seyedin Glyp c Art of Konar Sandal South, Observa ons on the Rela ve and Absolute Chronology in the Third Millennium BCE; Holly Pi man Stone Vessels from Tepe Hesar: Manufacture, Typology, Distribu on, 4th-2nd Millennia B.C.; Michèle Casanova and Sedigheh Piran Some Metal Belts from Hasanlu; Karen S. Rubinson Reconsidering the Chronology of the Iron Age in Gilan by Using Po ery Excavated from Tappe Jalaliye; Takuro Adachi Tappeh Hegmataneh and Ancient Ecbatana; Rémy Boucharlat Most Ancient Fire Temples: Wishful Thinking Versus Reality; Barbara Kaim Socio-economic Condi on during the Sasanian Period on the Mughan Steppe, Iranian Azerbaijan; Karim Alizadeh Some Remarks on the Use of Dressed Stone Masonry in the Architecture of Sasanian Iran; Pierfrancesco Callieri A Bulla of the Ērān-Spāhbed of Nēmrōz; Touraj Daryaee and Keyvan Safdari Micro-archaeology: A Suitable Tool to Inves gate Prac ce, Process and the Use of Space; Sepideh Saeedi Risk Management Strategies among Pastoralists: The Basseri and Lurs of Southwestern Iran; Masumeh Kimiaie An Unholy Quartet: Museum Trustees, An quity Dealers, Scien fic Experts, and Government Agents; Oscar White Muscarella Papers in Persian 198 Bemerkungen zu den Chahar Taqs (Vierborgenbauen) von Qasr-i Shirin und Izadkhast; Wolfram Kleiss, translated by Mehrdad Saeedi 214 Assyria in 19th Century French and Bri sh Thought; Kamyar Abdi 226 Taq-e Kasra, Espanbar-Ctesiphon: A Report of a Visit; Hamid Fahimi IN NĀMVARNĀMEH; PAPERS HONOUR OF M. AZARNOUSH 4 ‫ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺭﻧﺎﻣﻪ؛ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪﻫﺎﻳﻰ ﺩﺭ‬ 661 ‫ﭘﺎﺳﺪﺍﺷﺖ ﻳﺎﺩ ﻣﺴﻌﻮﺩ ﺁﺫﺭﻧﻮﺵ‬ ِ 246 Revision of the Hegmataneh Rela ve Chronology Based on Cultural Materials; Ali Hozhabri 254 Inves ga ng Bird Design on the Po eries Discovered in Stra graphic Excava ons at Tepe Hegmataneh; Roya Tajbakhsh 266 The Descrip on of Mud-Bricks Used in the Architectural Structures of Tepe Hegmataneh; Sepideh Maziar 282 Istakhr Fort and a Newly Discovered Sasanian Inscrip on; Ahmad Ali Asadi 296 Architecture of the Great Wall of Gorgan; Jebrael Nokandeh, Hamid Omrani Rekavandi and Ghorban Ali Abbasi 318 Archaeological Inves ga ons in the Region of Kāriyān-Larestan, the Supposed Seat of the Adur Farnbagh; Alireza Askari Chaverdi and Barbara Kaim 328 Sasanid Architecture of Kohandezh, Nishapur; Rajab Ali Labaf khaniki and Meysam Labaf Khaniki 350 Imarat-e Khosrow in View of the First Season of the Archaeological Excava ons; Yusef Moradi 376 An Underground Elimaean Tomb at Saaleh Davood; Mehdi Rahbar 394 History of the Produc on of Incense Materials in Rela on to Perfume, Cosme c, Medical and Food Spices in Ancient Iran; Arman Shishegar 406 Motalla Kooh; First Known Iron Age Se lement in Amlash Area; Vali Jahani 424 Shamshirgah; The First Archaeological Inves ga on; Hamid Fahimi 438 Results from Archaeological Survey in Dam Kharsan II Area; Parsa Ghasemi 458 Zur Bedeutung Irans für die Erforschung prähistorischer Kupfermetallurgie; Vincent C. Pigo , translated by Keyvan Sharifi 476 Archaeological Landscape of Eastern Coast of Gavkhuni Marsh; Mohammad Esmail Esmaili Jolodar 496 Se lement Pa ern of the Farsan Plain from the Prehistoric to the Islamic Period; Alireza Khosrowzadeh 508 Report on the Archaeological Survey of Mehran and Anaran District in Dehluran, Ilam Province; Mohsen Zeidi 514 Applica on of Geographical Informa on Systems: Analyzing Spa al Data from the Karaj and Qazvin Plains; Lili Niakian 524 Mortuary Prac ces in the Late Bronze Age at Dinkhah Tepe; Mozhgan Seyedin 540 Khanileh: New Evidence of Chalcolithic and Early Historic Occupa ons from Northwest of the Kermanshah Plain, Central Zagros; Yousf Hassanzadeh, M. Karami, F. Bahrol’oloomi, K. Taheri, A. Tahmasbi, A. Moradi Bisetouni and F. Biglari 556 Excava ons in Square O at Shahr-e Sokhteh; Hossein Moradi and Seyed Mansour Seyed Sajjadi 566 Shahdad, Then and Now; Mir Abedin Kaboli 580 Evidence of the Neolithic to Early Bronze Age Se lement in the Ferim Plain; Excava on at Tepe Sad; Ali Mahfrouzi 586 A Study and Analysis of Late Neolithic Obsidian at Qousha Tepe, Meshkin Shahr; Hassan Derakhshi and Alireza Hozhabri Nowbari 606 The Upper Paleolithic Period in Iran and its Place in Southwestern Asia; Elham Ghasidiyan 626 The Corridor of Iran; Early Modern Human Dispersal into the Iranian Plateau: A Geographical Perspec ve; Saman Heydari-Guran Tappeh Hegmataneh and Ancient Ecbatana Rémy Boucharlat ‫ﺍﻛﺒﺎﺗﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﺗﭙﺔ ﻫﮕﻤﺘﺎﻧﻪ ﻭ‬ ِ ‫ﺭﻣﻰ ﺑﻮﺷﺎﺭﻻ‬ ‫ ﻧﺸﺎﻥﺩﻫﻨﺪﺓ ﻣﺤﻮﻃﻪﻫﺎﻳﻰ ﺍﺳﺖ‬،‫ﺩﺳﺘﺎﻭﺭﺩ ﻛﺎﻭﺵﻫﺎﻯ ﮔﺴﺘﺮﺩﺓ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﻣﺤﻤﺪﺭﺣﻴﻢ ﺻﺮﺍﻑ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻌﻤﺎﺭﻯ ﺗﭙﺔ ﻫﮕﻤﺘﺎﻧﻪ‬ ‫ ﻻﻳﻪﻧﮕﺎﺭﻯ ﻫﺪﻓﻤﻨﺪ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﻣﺴﻌﻮﺩ ﺁﺫﺭﻧﻮﺵ ﺑﻪ ﺭﻭﺷﻨﻰ ﺁﺷﻜﺎﺭ ﺳﺎﺧﺖ ﻛﻪ‬.‫ﻛﻪ ﻫﻤﮕﻰ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻯ ﻧﻘﺸﻪ ﻭ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﻣﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ‬ .‫ ﻳﻚ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺍﺑﺪﺍﻉ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﻳﻜﻰ ﺍﺯ ﺷﺎﻫﺎﻥ ﺍﻭﺍﻳﻞ ﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﺷﻜﺎﻧﻰ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﻛﻪ ﺗﺎ ﭼﻨﺪﻳﻦ ﻗﺮﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺑﻪﻛﺎﺭ ﺭﻓﺘﻪ ﻭ ﺗﺪﺍﻭﻡ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‬،‫ﺍﻳﻦ‬ ‫ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻰﺑﺎﻳﺴﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺟﺎﻯ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻯ‬،‫ﻓﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺍﺭﺍﺋﻪﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺗﭙﺔ ﻫﮕﻤﺘﺎﻧﻪ ﻳﻚ ﺍﻗﺎﻣﺘﮕﺎﻩ ﻧﻈﺎﻣﻰ ﺩﺭ ﻛﻨﺎﺭ ﺍﻛﺒﺎﺗﺎﻧﺎﻯ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺎﻥ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ‬ ‫ ﻳﻚ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﺳﺮﻣﺎﻳﻪﮔﺬﺍﺭﻯﺍﻯ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﻧﺸﺎﻥﺩﻫﻨﺪﺓ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺖ ﺷﺎﻫﺎﻥ ﺍﺷﻜﺎﻧﻰ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺎﻳﻞ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ ﺍﻛﺒﺎﺗﺎﻧﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ‬.‫ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‬ .‫ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﻧﻈﺎﻣﻰ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﻣﻴﺎﻥﺭﻭﺩﺍﻥ ﺑﻪﺗﺎﺯﮔﻰ ﺗﺼﺮﻑﺷﺪﻩ ﻭ ﻗﻠﻤﺮﻭﻫﺎﻯ ﺷﺮﻗﻰ ﺧﻮﺩ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﻫﻨﺪ‬ The last archaeological project which the late Dr. Massoud Azarnoush undertook perfectly illustrates his academic career. His project on Tappeh Hegmataneh is a brilliant and precise intellectual progress: observa ons, thoughts, development of a clear project with two major ques ons, three excava on seasons and finally a precise and firm answer to one of these ques ons concerning the chronology. A brilliant result. I especially appreciate his thought process because I had the privilege to be a witness of Azarnoush‘s beginnings in Tappeh Hegmataneh and to hear his conclusions on the spot. In 1997, at the occasion of the 2nd Annual Symposium of Iranian Archaeology the par cipants benefited from a visit to the site with the excavator, Dr. M. R. Sarraf; at that me he had already carried out seven seasons of excava ons, and the results were quite impressive, showing the astonishing ‘urbanism’ of the city (?) and the enormous outer wall with its massive square towers. During this visit, as a specialist, M. Azarnoush asked quite interesting ques ons about the stra graphy contained within the grid of thick walls, and he offered some sugges ons concerning the defensive wall. As everybody knows, Dr. Azarnoush had long been a specialist of Parthian and Sasanian history and archaeology, and he had indepth knowledge of Hamadan deriving from his own excava ons of the Parthian cemetery at Sang-i Shir, south of T. Hegmataneh in 1974. He then took a keen interest in Tappeh Hegmataneh, convinced that this architecture had been in use in several periods, which obviously included the post-Achaemenid ones. When he was appointed director of ICAR in 2001, M. Azarnoush looked for other strategies concerning the inves ga ons at Tappeh Hegmataneh to be er understand the site and not expose large surfaces too much to the elements, despite the protec ng roofs built by Dr. Sarraf a er every campaign. Aware of the new technologies and of the importance of archaeometry,1 he came to the idea that surface reconnaissance by geophysical methods IN NĀMVARNĀMEH; PAPERS HONOUR OF M. AZARNOUSH 120 ‫ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺭﻧﺎﻣﻪ؛ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪﻫﺎﻳﻰ ﺩﺭ‬ 545 ‫ﭘﺎﺳﺪﺍﺷﺖ ﻳﺎﺩ ﻣﺴﻌﻮﺩ ﺁﺫﺭﻧﻮﺵ‬ ِ might provide useful hints or results for further research. At the me he knew of the results obtained with such methods by the joint Iran-France mission in Pasargadae. He called the specialists of the team to carry out some tests in T. Hegmataneh. Dr. Christophe Benech, archaeologist and geophysicist,2 went to Hamadan, and he agreed with Dr. Azarnoush on an a empt to conduct a geomagne c survey, without any excessive op mism because of the state of the soil. As a ma er of fact, the results of the tests C. Benech carried out in the following year 2002 were actually disappoin ng (see below). Giving up on this way for inves ga ng the extension of the built area on the site and for acquiring evidence on the general layout, Azarnoush changed his mind and decided to give priority to the other main ques on, the chronology of the exposed architecture. In his various ar cles, M. R. Sarraf was reluctant to give a date between the Median or Achaemenid period and the Sasanian one. He has maintained his posi on throughout his various ar cles un l the last report;3 he suggested a Median founda on modified or rebuilt by one Achaemenid king, probably an Artaxerxes, on the grounds of two inscrip ons found on stone column bases (not found in situ). This cau ous a tude derived from his observa ons on the material he found, in which these various periods were represented. Hence, Azarnoush set himself an objec ve, to determine the chronology by means of limited stra graphical soundings. 1. He organized and edited the First SymA er the first season in 2004, the chronostra graphy was set, in which the main archiposium of Archaeometry in Tehran in tectural level was apparently built in the Parthian period. This date was more precise in 2002. (Azarnoush 2002) 2005, as M. Azarnoush and R. Biscione showed me in October 2005.4 The excavators found 2. CNRS- University Lyon 2. 3. Sarraf 2003a: 153-154. evidence of Sasanian levels, and even a Late Parthian-Early Sasanian level, over the large 4. see Biscione 2005. Early-Middle Parthian walls, according to the po ery and some coins found within the large 5. Azarnoush 2007: fig. 2. 6. see Haerinck 1983: 41-42, 106 and walls and on the corresponding floors. The 2006 season allowed refinement of these results, 113. as I had the privilege to observe the clues during a second visit on December 4, at the kind 7. Sarraf 1999: 103; 2003a: 152; see also Azarnoush 2007: 31, fn. 84. invita on of Azarnoush who was doing some controls. In the blizzard, he showed me stra graphical sec ons. (Fig. 1) They clearly showed successive levels with quite different construc ons above the Parthian architecture, which was defini vely no longer in use in the late Parthian-Early Sasanian period. Surprisingly, beneath the main construc on level, the sec ons contained several meters of deposits consis ng of clay and fallen mudbricks without preserved architecture.5 The chronological clues were coins, pottery sherds including clinky ware, a dis nc ve po ery from western Iran, which starts in the first half of the 2nd cent. BC or in the middle of that century, according to the excava ons at Seleucia on the Tigris and in Susa.6 With such a date it is hard to say whether it appears at the very end of the Seleucid period or at the beginning of the Parthian one. Fortunately, the layers underneath have also yielded some clinky ware sherds, if I am not mistaken. If this class of po ery which starts in the mid-2nd cent. BC is present in the levels of fill beneath the main architectural level, the la er should be dated from the early Parthian period at the earliest. The more precise chronological clue came from the analysis by thermoluminescence of four brick samples taken from various soundings7: three results are quite consistent 1806±150; 1830±130,1700±160, as it is for a sherd from a storage jar from the Central sounding 2180±160. Only one is more recent: 1184±300. The results of Azarnoush’s excava ons came as a big surprise. Not only the architecture of Tappeh Hegmataneh was of Parthian date, but it was only Parthian, ending before the Sasanian period, a rather short period considering the previous Sarraf chronology. Only two or three centuries is a reasonFig. 1. Dr. Azarnoush commen ng on a stra graphic sec on. (December 2006) able dura on for mudbrick architecture, which quickly decays Tappeh Hegmataneh and Ancient Ecbatana 121 ‫ﺗﭙﺔ ﻫﮕــﻤﺘﺎﻧﻪ ﻭ‬ 544 ‫ﺍﻛـﺒﺎﺗﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﺳــﺘﺎﻥ‬ ِ when it is not carefully maintained, especially in a non-arid climate; Hamadan is located in a rather humid climate,8 by comparison with the environment of the whole Iranian Plateau. The 11 seasons of excava ons (1983-99) by M.R. Sarraf 9 have exposed this large and regular architecture over some 4000 m2.10 This quite large surface actually was just a small part of the extension of the tappeh covering some 50 hectares of which 25 have been bought by ICHHTO since the 70’s of the last century. However, with several excava ons and soundings judiciously distributed by the excavator, this excavated surface was sufficient for ascertaining a repe ve architecture over some 7 hectares at a minimum, extending over 500 m from north to south11 and 150m in width, according to the plan. (Fig. 2) Cau ously, the excavator did not assume that the whole area protected by the massive wall12 follows the same plan, raising the possibility that the central part was occupied by public buildings of different plans.13 This very regular layout is divided up into square architectural units 17.50m aside, all following the same plan, offering some 180m2 inner space. (Fig. 3) M. R. Sarraf demonstrated some architectural changes throughout me (for the doors, some walls, bricks sizes, reused material, including Achaemenid fragments). In several soundings, the excavator went down to the founda ons of the walls and reached the bedrock in some places or did not find any other built structures beneath the big walls. He then concluded the architecture rested upon sterile soil. Only in a very few areas, especially northwards, he noted fireplaces and some painted sherds apparently belonging to Iron Age III. As already men oned, he preferred to think he had exposed a strong long-lived architecture, con nuously occupied. For Sarraf the date of the original construc on may be in the Median or the Achaemenid period. From these two strategies a lot is now known about T. Hegmataneh. Sarraf’s approach has provided a rather clear idea of the urbanism and its extension. Con nuing the excavaons would only clear more blocks and units. Azarnoush’s strategy aimed at defining the date of the original construc on and its dura on: these two ques ons have been brilliantly solved. What more should be done? Which are the next ques ons concerning the func on of (late Seleucid?)- Parthian T. Hegmataneh and its meaning within Hamadan/Ecbatana site and more generally for the regional history of that period? The geophysical survey: a disappointing result The visit Ch. Benech paid at T. Hegmataneh at the invita on of Dr. Azarnoush14 did not leave hope concerning the geophysical tests. The uneven surface, a result of the destruc on of the modern houses, the areas fla ened by bulldozers crea ng several meters of recent fill and dumps, and the distribu on of the soundings and excava ons15 did not leave large available surfaces for geophysical tests. Looking at the sec ons, it was clear that the deep founda ons of the 20th cent. houses, made of baked bricks and some of concrete, would trouble the reading of the levels underneath or even screen them. The best method which was envisaged was the geomagne c one with a Cesium gradiometer, because it is the fastest one. The electrical method would be used in some places with much metal refuse, but the measuring would be less precise and the mudbrick structures not always readable. The case was very different from Pasargadae where the detected anomalies almost always refer to Achaemenid (and possibly post-Achaemenid) features, with very few modern ones. On T. Hegmataneh, the long and various occupa ons may have started in the pre-Achaemenid period and with some interrup ons con nue to the 20th century. The modern occupa on was stopped when the Iranian government started to buy a large part of the archaeological site. T. Hegmataneh is an interes ng, though difficult, case of archaeology in an urban milieu, which demands specific and appropriate strategy and methods. The geomagne c tests done by Ch. Benech from 16-22 September 2002 were disappointing in all the selected areas. It was not a ques on of strategy, which was precisely defined with M. Azarnoush, nor a problem of the available technology. On the eight magne c maps, only huge metal pollu on some meters under the surface and meters of modern fill appeared, while the archaeological features underneath were completely hidden. The images show these black spots and splashes. (Fig. 4) Cleaning the surface by removing the visible 8. 385 mm rainfall per year, e.g. Ganji 1968 247: Table 3. 9. a summary in Sarraf 2003b. 10. cited by Azarnoush 2007: 27. 11. Sarraf 2003b: 273. 12. The original thickness is s ll to be de- fined. There are obvious repairs and addi ons. However, the lower part of the massive square towers seems to belong to the original plan. 13. palaces, temples, treasuries. 14. December 19-23, 2001. 15. some being conveniently protected by metallic roofing. IN NĀMVARNĀMEH; PAPERS HONOUR OF M. AZARNOUSH 122 543 ‫ﭘﺎﺳﺪﺍﺷﺖ ﻳﺎﺩ ﻣﺴﻌﻮﺩ ﺁﺫﺭﻧﻮﺵ‬ ‫ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺭﻧﺎﻣﻪ؛ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪﻫﺎﻳﻰ ﺩﺭ‬ ِ Fig. 2. Tappeh Hegmataneh. Plan of M. R. Sarraf’s excava ons (1983-1999). and loca on of the soundings carried out by M. Azarnoush in 2004-2006. (a er Azarnoush 2007: fig. 2) Tappeh Hegmataneh and Ancient Ecbatana 123 ‫ﺗﭙﺔ ﻫﮕــﻤﺘﺎﻧﻪ ﻭ‬ 542 ‫ﺍﻛـﺒﺎﺗﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﺳــﺘﺎﻥ‬ ِ Fig. 3. Plan of all the units in the compound. (Azarnoush 2007: Plan 2. a er Sarraf 2003b: Abb. 5, 2) scraps and cement waste was possible, but reaching those buried some dozens of cen metres was not. The tests by the electrical method were useless because of the thick earth filling. The other conceivable methods such as radar (GPR) which are able to go through the first meter without recording the anomalies it contains and read the deeper features would not be accurate in the environmental and archaeological context of Tappeh Hegmataneh, because mudbrick, a conduc ve material, cannot be detected by this kind of equipment. To conclude this experience with some op mism, let us hope that today’s or future geophysical (electrosta c) equipment will give higher performances. For sure, geophysical methods should not be defini vely ruled out for Tappeh Hegmataneh. Some considerations of Azarnoush’s excavations (based upon Azarnoush 2007) Obviously the main result of Azarnoush’s three-year program concerns the stra chronology of the occupa on of T. Hegmataneh and the date of the main architectural level. It is interesting to note some observa ons: - While there is no building level beneath the main one-at least in the five soundings he carried out-there are several metres of layers corresponding to a fill of earth and clay from mudbricks, fallen bricks and sherds. Therefore, in the recently excavated parts, the main architectural level does not rest upon sterile soil. These lower layers may correspond to a levelling of the surface especially near the slope of the natural rocky hill to create a horizontal level. The content of this fill indicates a previous occupa on with mudbrick architecture. Nothing is known, but it existed and was apparently of some importance judging from the thickness of the layers. That is very interes ng for the history of the tappeh and gives some hope for discovering one day in some place pre-Parthian occupa on levels.16 16. The ques on concerns the occupa- on a er the possible late Protohistoric period men oned by Dyson (1954: 31-33) and some painted sherds of Iron III style Sarraf once men oned to me (pers. comm.). It is highly desirable to have more informa on about this painted po ery assemblage in order to clearly conclude whether it actually belongs to Iron III, late Iron III (Achaemenid?) or Iron IV styles. Moreover the chronological limit between Iron III and IV is s ll illdefined (Levine 1987, 242-243; Dyson 1999a and 199b; Young 2002, 423424; Cur s 2005, 243-244 apropos a painted po ery jar from Nush-i Jan). IN NĀMVARNĀMEH; PAPERS HONOUR OF M. AZARNOUSH 124 ‫ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺭﻧﺎﻣﻪ؛ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪﻫﺎﻳﻰ ﺩﺭ‬ 541 ‫ﭘﺎﺳﺪﺍﺷﺖ ﻳﺎﺩ ﻣﺴﻌﻮﺩ ﺁﺫﺭﻧﻮﺵ‬ ِ - Following the abandonment of the main structure –apparently not a destruc on of it- the later occupa on seems to follow the Parthian one without an important gap,17 as it is for the Sasanian and Sasanian-Early Islamic periods, Levels 6 and 5 in Azarnoush’s excava ons.18 Interes ngly, a erwards the occupa on stopped here unl the 19th century.19 Some pending questions after Sarraf’s and Azarnoush’s excavations - The occupation periods of the tappeh 17. Level 7 is said to be Parthian-Sasa- nian. 18. Azarnoush 2007: 27. 19. Qajar-Pahlavi period levels 1-4. 20. Azarnoush 2007: 31. 21. Knapton, Sarraf, Cur s 2001. 22. 1896: 233-259. 23. Chevalier 1989. 24. Herzfeld 1935: 23. 25. Morgan 1896: 253. 26. Ibid. Fig. 157-160. 27. 1896: 259. 28. Sarraf 2003b: 274. 29. Azarnoush 2007: 25. 30. Biscione 2005: 345 and 356-7. 31. Boillet 2009. 32. See Fig. 2 and the most complete plan in Sarraf 2003a: Fig. 39. The low quality of this printed plan prevents me from reproducing it here. a/ A er 11 seasons of excava ons and three more for soundings we are le without answer concerning the Median and Achaemenid periods at T. Hegmataneh. One can guess that the s ll hypothe cal Iron III evidence may well correspond to the Median in terms of chronology; we do not expect to find common objects of the ‘Median’ period, although the excava ons at Nush-i Jan and Godin tepe Median-period levels have not shown any painted po ery for the 8th-6th cent. BC. For the me being, this ephemeral occupa on does not seem to extend widely on the tappeh according to Sarraf’s excava ons. Was this hypothe cal pre-Achaemenid occupa on restricted in terms of extension and quality of construc ons? From Azarnoush’s excava ons, there is no evidence of Iron Age material.20 b/ For the Achaemenid period, there are now enough hints for one or several elite buildings nearby. Many pieces of column bases, today exhibited in the local museum, do not actually come from Hegmataneh,21 but some pieces have been found there including fragments in a secondary deposit in Sarraf’s excava ons. It is hardly possible to imagine that all of them have been brought from very far. Tappeh Mosalla is a plausible provenience, but in such a case the poor pieces found on Tappeh Hegmataneh itself, some set into a wall, would have been in ter ary deposi on: to take a small column base fragment from Tappeh Mosalla to be directly set into a wall in Tappeh Hegmataneh would be nonsense. c/ The Seleucid period. Amongst the objects of that period said to be from Hamadan by Flandin and Coste, Morgan,22 Fossey,23 Herzfeld,24 very few have been surely found on T. Hegmataneh itself. There are some pieces amongst the objects collected by J. de Morgan, but he did not give any informa on about the provenience except that they were from the ruins of the city25 or from the ruins of Ecbatana.26 It should be noted that the Seleucid coins are not very numerous in comparison with the Parthian ones, as was already observed by Morgan27 for Hamadan. For Tappeh Hegmataneh, Sarraf reported one legible Seleucid coin,28 actually from Seleucos IV, and one Parthian coin.29 The bronze coins of the Parthians are o en hardly legible and do not receive much considera on; from Azarnoush’s excava ons, there is so far reported only a bronze coin of the early Parthian period and three others illegible.30 Contrary to this archaeological fact, it should be remembered that we do know Ecbatana was an acve mint in both periods.31 d/ The Parthian period. There is no more chronological ques on for that period which is the best represented on Tappeh Hegmataneh. One just notes that the abandonment occurred before the end of the period, in the 2nd century. AD. One can assume there is probably a link between that event and the func on of the compound and not a rela onship with a change in the dynasty. - Layout and architecture As demonstrated by Sarraf, the regular architectonic layout extends over 300 and possibly 500m N-S, and at least 70 E-W, possibly twice this width.32 It would then represent ca. 7-10ha; the remaining part of the tappeh, especially the central one and the summit of the outcrop to the SW might have supported other construc ons, maybe of quite different type as Sarraf has suggested. In a word, there is no evidence that the whole site had this regular layout, which obviously had a specific func on. Regarding this layout, it is o en assumed that it consists of blocks to be compared to insulae of the Greek ci es following the Hippodamian plan. The blocks are 35m wide, which Tappeh Hegmataneh and Ancient Ecbatana 125 ‫ﺗﭙﺔ ﻫﮕــﻤﺘﺎﻧﻪ ﻭ‬ 540 ‫ﺍﻛـﺒﺎﺗﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﺳــﺘﺎﻥ‬ ِ is certain, or half of that width in one case, by nearly 70m long when one looks at the former plans.33 As a ma er of fact, this length has been changed, thanks to Sarraf’s last seasons. The previous plans show that when the excava ons went beyond the apparent south western end of every block, one observes that the plan of two architectural units extends beyond it.34 The point became clear in 199935: each block extends over some 100 m. Beyond the NW-SE street a second row of blocks starts, to which belongs the par ally excavated block to the south of the site.36 There were nine blocks already a ested, plus one or two to the south, and the total is probably 15 or more from north to south. In the east-west direc on, two rows of blocks, which were the same or of different length, are visible; they might have been more than two. Since the architectural units are exactly the same from Sarraf’s and from Azarnoush’s excava ons, there are good reasons to accept the plan of the blocks divided into similar units as Sarraf reconstructs it in his various ar cles. The plan of the units would fit well with an apartment, probably with a central rectangular courtyard. The thickness of the walls allows an upper floor, which can be reached by a staircase: the strong mudbrick masonry, which occurs in every unit near the entrance, may well be the lower part of such a staircase. This is not defini ve evidence, knowing that the staircase would also give access to the flat roof. The most striking observa on is the perfectly iden cal plan for every unit. Certainly this plan very likely derives from a unique decision and planning, but it hardly fits with the diversity of a civil popula on. Ruling out housing for families, one can hardly think of accommoda on for workers, as was the great Egyp an compound in Tell Amarna in the 2nd mill. BC. In the ruler’s point of view, these apartments would have been too luxurious. - Contents of the buildings In his reports M.R. Sarraf speaks shortly about the ar facts, using them first as chronological clues for sugges ng this architectural level has been occupied for many centuries. More details on the material would help in defining the unique or varied func ons of the architectural units, but it seems the excavated ar facts are rather simple, mainly pots and sherds but nothing else that could give an idea of the func on of the compound. To be noted in one area (South Trench) is a series of storage jars in one of the rooms37 and again three buried jars on a line exposed in the last seasons.38 Because no remains have been found in them, the excavator assumes they might have contained liquids. These jars could indicate a storage func on for some parts of the compound, but we do not know how o en such jar concentra ons occurred on the site. - Function Thanks to the two series of important results, one could hope to be able to have a be er idea of the func on of this architectural compound. However, in spite of the extension of the excava ons and the precision of the recent soundings, we are le without any hint. Only some sugges ons can be cau ously offered here. T. Hegmataneh is probably only one part of Ecbatana, which probably extends much beyond the limit of the tappeh, eastwards to the Alusjerd River, southwards including Tappeh Mosalla and very likely westwards to the place of the modern city center. For the la er, one can rely on the various spots where pieces of Achaemenid architecture have been seen or preserved.39 The sketch plan given by Morgan40 is totally hypothe cal, but it is of interest because in the late 19th century the lesser extension of the modern city allowed a be er observa on of the topography. The very schema c and imagina ve plan by Morgan (Fig. 5) helps to consider T. Hegmataneh as a part of Ecbatana, and maybe not its very center. As already stated by many travellers and archaeologists, T. Mosalla also shows archaeological remains, which are o en dated to the Parthian period.41 T. Mosalla was probably the best protected area of Ecbatana in that period (and maybe in the earlier periods) and may well be the poli cal center. Looking at T. Hegmataneh as a part of Ecbatana and not as the true centre of the whole city, its possible func ons are more open. Ecbatana was the seat of a royal residence in the Achaemenid period, being at the same me a place for storing a part of the royal treasure, 33. Boucharlat 1997: 177 and s ll Sarraf 2003b: Pl. 16 and again Azarnoush 2007: 39 fig. 2. 34. Sarraf 2003b: Pl. 16, more visible in Sarraf 2000: Fig. 9. 35. Sarraf 2003a: 169, Fig. 39. 36. To be noted the plan in Sarraf 1997, Abb. 4 and ibid. 2000, fig. 9, has been shortened by 110m, near East-West square line 65. Moreover the South Trench, as it is posi oned in these two ar cles, would be right in the middle of the Museum. It is now rightly located in the last plans (Sarraf 2003a, fig. 39 and Azarnoush’s one). 37. Sarraf 1996: Fig. 15-17. 38. Sarraf 2003a: 150 and Fig. 33-34. 39. The precise place is certainly not an actual indica on of the original spot, but one can imagine the local inhabitants taking the fragments near their house rather than bringing them from several kilometers away. This number of fragments so far seen in Hamadan is the only clue for the ancient occupa on (especially in the Achaemenid period) of the area of the modern city which is lower than T. Hegmataneh, but s ll on an elevated part of the plain. 40. 1896: 248. 41. summary in Brown 1997: 80. IN NĀMVARNĀMEH; PAPERS HONOUR OF M. AZARNOUSH 126 Fig. 4. An illegible magne c map from the 2002 test survey. (Benech 2002b) ‫ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺭﻧﺎﻣﻪ؛ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪﻫﺎﻳﻰ ﺩﺭ‬ 539 ‫ﭘﺎﺳﺪﺍﺷﺖ ﻳﺎﺩ ﻣﺴﻌﻮﺩ ﺁﺫﺭﻧﻮﺵ‬ ِ Fig. 5. Hypothe cal reconstruc on of ancient Ecbatana by J. de Morgan (1896: fig. 156), placing Tappeh Hegmataneh (“c c” on the plan) amongst other parts of the city. which Alexander took. Ecbatana was also the mee ng point for gathering an army, as Darius III did in 330. Later on, in the Seleucid period, Ecbatana was an important place. Though geographically eccentric on the Iranian Plateau, Ecbatana was chosen by the first Seleucid king as the capital of the “Upper Satrapies”, which extended as far as Afghanistan and southern Central Asia, and was the primary min ng place, besides Seleucia on the Tigris, under Seleucos I. Later the importance of the min ng workshop diminished.42 However, under An ochos III and Seleucos IV (late 3rd and early 2nd cent. BC), Ecbatana clearly played the role of a military gathering place. The city con nued to be an important military, economic, and therefore poli cal place under the Parthians who took over the Seleucids in the mid-2nd cent. BC. Origina ng from Parthia, keeping interest in that area (Nisa) and in Northern Iran (Shahr-e Qomes), the Parthian kings were in a way reluctant to definitely se le in Seleucia, which was the former Eastern Seleucid capital and had the status of ‘polis’, Greek city. Therefore, they might have considered Ecbatana and Media as a strong and more secure place. 42. Boillet 2009. Tappeh Hegmataneh as the site of huge military quarters? Determining the date of the impressive architecture does not directly indicate its func on, but it may help. In the historical context of the Parthian conquest of Mesopotamia against the last Seleucid kings and the first difficult decades of that domina on, Ecbatana has very likely played an important role, and it was first a military place. The impressive architecture of T. Hegmataneh, which is now dated from the middle/ second half of the 2nd cent. BC, can be seen as one of the achievements of the first Parthian king(s) very concerned about their Eastern provinces and feeling more secure and at home in Hamadan than in Mesopotamia, especially in the unse led first decades of their rule. This grandiose construc on was suitable for hos ng an army permanently se led in Hamadan, which needed to have room for storing food and military equipment. The regularity of the architecture would fit with such a func on, a reminder that later in the Roman world the Tappeh Hegmataneh and Ancient Ecbatana 127 538 ‫ﺍﻛـﺒﺎﺗﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﺳــﺘﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﺗﭙﺔ ﻫﮕــﻤﺘﺎﻧﻪ ﻭ‬ ِ Hippodamic layout of rectangular blocks was not only applied to towns but to military quarters as well (in that case consis ng of long rows of similar units). Owing to the fact that the recovered material is rather poor, the ques on of the possible func ons of each block is s ll pending (accommoda on, storage), with the central courtyard facing the entrance, allowing the distribu on of people or items in to the surrounding rooms. In this respect, one of the comparisons judiciously suggested by M.R. Sarraf, though for later periods than the probable one in Ecbatana, deserves considera on. It concerns Zernaki Tepe on the northern shore of Lake Van in Turkey. This 1 km square site consists of dozens of rows of blocks ca. 25 m43 or 35 m square,44 each of them clustering four almost iden cal units; the layout is different from the plan of the units at T. Hegmataneh (Fig. 6), the plan of every unit is quite different from the plan of the units at T. Hegmataneh (Fig. 7), the only regularity is the urban character and the similarity of the units are here considered. Burney and Lawson45 noted the quality of the construc on with walls 1.50 m thick and the inner walls 1m thick, all built with two rows of large stones with a filling of small stones between them. Moreover the authors noted that the thickness of the walls and the presence of long narrow spaces may indicate that there was an upper storey, as I suggest for T. Hegmataneh. The rows of blocks are divided by two perpendicular main streets (7 m wide), crossing in the middle of the site.46 Because there is no defence wall and almost no sherds on the surface,47 the site was certainly le uncompleted. This lack of sherds is Sevin’s main argument for ques oning the Urar an date first given by Burney and Lawson. Moreover a fragment of a stone capital and stucco pieces found in the citadel speak for a much later date. Tentavely, Sevin suggests the site is a town from the Parthian-Roman period, maybe even as late as Shapur I’s me, who is famous for his founda on of towns on Hippodamic principles.48 Zernaki may bear witness to its military ac vity in that region during the wars against the Romans.49 Let us retain the hypothesis of a late date instead of an Urar an one.50 These authors do not ques on the precise func on of the archaeological remains of Zernaki Tepe. Burney and Lawson apparently envisaged a city, and Sevin, according to his 43. Burney, Lawson 1960: 187. 44. Sevin 1997: 173. 45. 1960: 187. 46. Burney, Lawson 1969: Fig. p. 186, Fig. 6. Schema c plan of Zernaki Tepe near Lake Van. (Burney, Lawson 1969, 186) maybe partly reconstructed; Sevin 1997: Fig. 1-3. 47. During the survey, two Urar an sherds and two plain wheel-made red-ware sherds were collected, which led the authors to date the site to the Urar an period. Moreover, they observed that the masonry was similar to the walls of securely dated Urar an fortresses (Burney, Lawson 1969: 186). 48. e.g. the grid plan of Bishapur with the two perpendicular streets crossing in the middle. 49. Sevin 1997: 175-176. 50. It is worth men oning that Sevin (1997: 175) feels doub ul about the Urar an da ng of several sites of that region only on the ground of a grid plan and the inner plan. IN NĀMVARNĀMEH; PAPERS HONOUR OF M. AZARNOUSH 128 ‫ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺭﻧﺎﻣﻪ؛ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪﻫﺎﻳﻰ ﺩﺭ‬ 537 ‫ﭘﺎﺳﺪﺍﺷﺖ ﻳﺎﺩ ﻣﺴﻌﻮﺩ ﺁﺫﺭﻧﻮﺵ‬ ِ men on of the wars, probably thought it was military quarters. This hypothesis of military quarters finds echoes in many places in the East and the West of the Roman Empire in the first centuries of the Chris an era. For the East, let us men on only one of the many examples in Egypt, Tell-el Herr, dated to the late 3rd cent. AD.51 In this very small camp, in comparison with T. Hegmataneh, the rows of blocks contain a series of units of a similar plan. In Europe, recent studies have shown the diversity but regularity of the permanent Roman camps, which not only include barracks and houses but also headquarters and the buildings of the officers.52 Finally, there are examples of Roman camps integrated in the city layout besides the actual center with the public monuments, such as amphitheater, forum, etc.53 As a good example, the camp of Windish in southeast Germany (Fig. 8) dates back to the 1st cent. AD and con nued down to the 3rd cent. Such comparisons may illustrate the cultural eastwest exchange, though mainly based upon war. Windish can be considered as a complete mirror of the city of Ecbatana in the same period. Since there is enough room elsewhere Fig. 7. Zernaki Tepe. Plan of a block in the town containing four similar units. for the citadel (T. Mosalla) and an actual town (Burney, Lawson 1969, 187) (maybe beneath the modern city?), and because of the strict regularity of every unit, I suggest that T. Hegmataneh was covered by military quarters, within or besides the city of Ecbatana itself, which did exist somewhere before the Parthians. These quarters were created at one si ng, but in contract to Zernaki, they were actually completed, protected by a strong defence wall and used for a few centuries with several phases of par al repair. It may be surprising that military quarters have been so carefully built, but again Zernaki shows the same important investment, with every unit carefully built with thick walls; although Zernaki was eventually le unfinished and totally abandoned. As for the Roman military camps and permanent quarters, Zernaki may be used for exploring further the plan of T. Hegmataneh. The Roman examples (see Fig.8) show that the regular rows of blocks do not cover the whole military quarters, leaving a place for headquarters (Roman quarters) or a kind of acropolis at Zernaki.54 On T.Hegmataneh the rows of blocks may be limited to those two known, while headquarters and other buildings related to military ac vi es would have occupied the upper part of the outcrop; they were very likely built on different plans. Knowing the huge efforts a king is ready to invest to set an army in these mes, it is temp ng to see Tappeh Hegmataneh as a huge military enterprise launched by the first Parthian king Mithridates I, or one of his successors as soon as the second half of the 2nd century BC, before the Roman conquest of the Near East. At the me of the conquest of Mesopotamia or shortly a er 141 BC, a strong military place was necessary for securing the army when the danger from the Seleucid empire was not yet completely eliminated, 51. Valbelle, Carrez-Maratray 2000: Fig. 85. together with the necessity to maintain control of the eastern provinces already conquered. 52. Reddé et al. 2006: e.g. Fig. 120, 323, It is certainly dangerous to directly link archaeological remains to specific poli cal or military 388. events, but no doubt the huge architectural compound of Tappeh Hegmataneh corresponds 53. Reddé et al. 2006: fig. 481. 54. Sevin 1997: 173 and Fig. 1. to an important moment in the history of Media and the Parthian empire. Tappeh Hegmataneh and Ancient Ecbatana 129 ‫ﺗﭙﺔ ﻫﮕــﻤﺘﺎﻧﻪ ﻭ‬ 536 ‫ﺍﻛـﺒﺎﺗﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﺳــﺘﺎﻥ‬ ِ Fig. 8. The Roman city of Windish in southwestern. Germany 1st cent. AD. (Reddé et al. 2006: fig. 481) Bibliography Azarnoush, M. (ed.) 2002 Majmu’e-ye maqālāt nokhos n hamāyeš-e bāstānšenāsi dar Irān : naqš-e olūmpāyeh dar bāstānšenāsi 8 va 9 ābān māh 1381, (Summary of Ar cles. The First Symposium of Archaeometry in Iran: The Role of Sciences in Archaeology), Tehran, Sāzmān mirās-e farhangi-e kešvar, pzhūheškade-ye bāstānšenāsi. 2007 Gozāreš moqadamā -ye kāvošhāye lāyešenākh tappe-ye hegmatāneh Hamedān, In: Gozārešhāye bāstānšenāsi (7), nohomin gerdehamāi-ye sālāne-ye bāstānšenāsi-ye Irān, 1: Tehrān 1376, 19-60. Benech, C. 2002a Compte-rendu de la visite du site Tepe Hegmataneh (Hamadan, Iran), Unpublished report delivered to ICAR, Tehran, 5 p. 2002b Prospec ons géophysiques sur le site de Tepe Hegmataneh (Iran), Unpublished report delivered to ICAR, Tehran, 11 p. Biscione, R. 2005 Hamadan-Ecbatana. Campagna 2005, In: Studi Micenei ed Egeo Anatolici, vol. 47, 345-351. Boucharlat, R. 1998 A la recherche d’Ecbatane sur Tepe Hegmataneh, In: Iranica An qua, vol. XXXIII, 173-186. Brown, S. T. 1997 s.v. Ecbatana, In: Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. VIII, 1, 80-84. IN NĀMVARNĀMEH; PAPERS HONOUR OF M. AZARNOUSH 130 ‫ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺭﻧﺎﻣﻪ؛ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪﻫﺎﻳﻰ ﺩﺭ‬ 535 ‫ﭘﺎﺳﺪﺍﺷﺖ ﻳﺎﺩ ﻣﺴﻌﻮﺩ ﺁﺫﺭﻧﻮﺵ‬ ِ Burney, C. and Lawson, G. R. J. 1960 Measured Plans of Urar an Fortresses, In: Anatolian Studies, vol. X, 177-196. Chevalier, N. 1989 Hamadan 1913, une mission oubliée, In: Iranica An qua, vol. XXIV, 245-251. Cur s, J. 2005 The Material Culture of Tepe Nush-I Jan and the End of Iron Age III Period in Western Iran, In: Iranica An qua, vol. 40, 233-248. Dyson, R. H. 1957 Iran 1956, In: University Museum Bulle n, vol. 21, 1 (University of Pennsylvania), 27-39. 1999a The Achaemenid painted po ery of Hasanlu IIIA, In: Anatolian Studies, vol. 49, 101-110. 1999b Triangle-Festoon Ware reconsidered, In: Iranica An qua, vol. 34, 115-144. Ganji, M. H. 1968 Rainfall, In: W. B. Fisher (ed.) The Land of Iran (The Cambridge History of Iran I), 212-249. Haerinck, E. 1983 La céramique en Iran pendant la période parthe (ca. 250 av. J.C. à ca. 225 après J.C.): typologie, chronologie et distribu on (Iranica An qua Suppl. 2), Gent. Herzfeld, E. 1935 Archaeological History of Iran, London, The Bri sh Academy. Knapton, P., Sarraf, M. R. and Cur s, J. E. 2001 Inscribed column bases from Hamadan, In: Iran, vol.39, 99-117. Levine, L. D. 1987 The Iron Age, In: F. Hole (ed.) The Archaeology of Western Iran. Se lement and Society from Prehistory to the Islamic Conquest, Smithsonian series in Archaeological Enquiries, Smithsonian Ins tu on Press, Washington, D.C.-London: 229-250. Morgan, J. de. 1896 Mission en Perse IV. Recherches archéologiques, Paris [Hamedan pp. 233-259]. Rémy Boucharlat A senior researcher at French CNRS, he currently serves as the director of the ‘Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée’, a CNRS-Lyon 2 University Ins tute devoted to the study of the past and present Near East and Mediterranean world. He earned his PhD in Paris I Sorbonne university in 1978 on southwestern Iran in the Sasanian period. He has worked in Iran since the early 70’s, in Susa for the Achamenid and later periods, and in Toreng tepe, Gorgan, on the Sasanian period. He has conducted surveys and excava ons in Abu Dhabi, Sharjah and Umm al-Qaiwayn Emirates in the 80’s and early 90’s on the Iron Age and later periods. A er some experiences in Khazakhstan and Turkmenistan archaeology, he was fortunate to come back to Iran as the Director of the French Ins tute of Research in Iran (1994-1998). Since 1999, he has codirected joint IranFrance missions in Fars, looking for the Achaemenid impact on the natural and human environment of the royal residences of Pasargadae and Persepolis. At the same me he codirected some salvage excava ons in Pasargadae area. He has published and edited three books and over one hundred ar cles about the historical periods in Iran and the Persian Gulf, and some contribu ons on Central Asian archaeology. remy.boucharlat@mom.fr Reddé, M., Brulet, R., Fellmann, R., Haalbos, J. R. and von Schnurbein, S. 2006 Architecture de la Gaule romaine. Les for fica ons militaires, Paris (Documents d’archéologie française, 100). Sarraf, M. R. 1989 Hegmatāneh, In: M. Y. Kiāni (ed.) Shahrhā-ye Irān (Iranian Ci es), vol. 3, 290-311. 1996 (1374) Noyā ehāye me’māri va shahrsāzi dar tappeh Hegmatāneh (Hamedān), Tārikh me’māri va shahrsāzi Irān, 12-17 Esfand māh, Arg-e Bam-Kermān, vol. I, 812-840. 1997 Neue architektonische und städtebauliche Funde von Ekbatana-Tepe (Hamadan), In: AMIT, vol. 29, 321-339. 1999 (1378) Ravand me’māri va shahrsāzi-ye bāstāni-ye Hegmatāneh (Hamedān), Dovvomin kongreye tārikh-e me’māri va shahrsāzi-ye Irān (Second Congress of the history of Iranian architecture and urbanism), Arg-e Bam, Kermān-Irān, 25-29 Favardīn māh 1378), vol. I, 87-120. 2003a (1382) Shahr-e bāstāni-ye kheš , hegmatāneh, hamedān: natāyej-e dastāvardhāye dahomin va yāāzdahomin fasl-e kāvōš dar tābestān va pāiiz 1378-79 [The mudbrick city of Hegmataneh, Hamadan: results obtained during the 10th and 11th seasons of excava ons in Summer and Autumn 1999-2000], In: Nohomīn conferens beinomellali motāle’at va hefāzat me’mārī kheš [Ninth Interna onal Conference of studies and preserva on of mudbrick architecture], Yazd, 149-170. 2003b Archaeological excava ons in Tepe Ekbatana (Hamadan) by the Iranian Archaeological Mission between 1983 and 1999, In: G. Lanfranchi, M. Roaf and R. Rollinger (eds.) Con nuity of Empire (?). Assyria, Media, Persia, Padova (History of the Ancient Near East/Monographs-V), 271-279, Pl. 16-22. Sevin, V. 1997 Van/Zernaki Tepe: On the Urar an Grid Plan once again, In: Anatolica, vol. XXIII, 173-180. Valbelle, D. and Carrez-Maratray, J.-Y. 2000 Le camp romain du Bas-Empire à Tell el-Herr, Paris. ‫ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺭﻧﺎﻣﻪ؛ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪﻫﺎﻳﻰ ﺩﺭ‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫ﭘﺎﺳﺪﺍﺷﺖ ﻳﺎﺩ ﻣﺴﻌﻮﺩ ﺁﺫﺭﻧﻮﺵ ‪2‬‬ ‫‪IN‬‬ ‫‪NĀMVARNĀMEH; PAPERS‬‬ ‫‪HONOUR OF M. AZARNOUSH 663‬‬ ‫‪337‬‬ ‫ﻣﻌﻤﺎﺭﻯ ﻛﻬﻦﺩژ ﻧﻴﺸﺎﺑﻮﺭ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺳﺎﺳﺎﻧﻰ؛ ﺭﺟﺒﻌﻠﻰ ﻟﺒﺎﻑ ﺧﺎﻧﻴﻜﻰ ﻭ ﻣﻴﺜﻢ ﻟﺒﺎﻑ ﺧﺎﻧﻴﻜﻰ‬ ‫‪347‬‬ ‫ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶﻫﺎﻯ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺎﻥﺷﻨﺎﺳﻰ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﺔ ﻛﺎﺭﻳﺎﻥ ﻻﺭﺳﺘﺎﻥ‪ :‬ﻓﺮﺿﻴﻪﺍﻯ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﺓ ﻣﺤﻞ ﺁﺗﺶ ﺁﺫﺭ َﻓﺮﻧﺒَﻎ؛ ﻋﻠﻴﺮﺿﺎ ﻋﺴﻜﺮﻯ ﭼﺎﻭﺭﺩﻯ ﻭ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﺭﺑﺎﺭﺍ ﻛﺎﺋﻴﻢ‬ ‫‪369‬‬ ‫ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﻣﻌﻤﺎﺭﻯ ﺩﻳﻮﺍﺭ ﺑﺰﺭگ ﮔﺮﮔﺎﻥ؛ ﺟﺒﺮﺋﻴﻞ ﻧﻮﻛﻨﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﺣﻤﻴﺪ ﻋﻤﺮﺍﻧﻰ ﺭﻛﺎﻭﻧﺪﻯ ﻭ ﻗﺮﺑﺎﻧﻌﻠﻰ ﻋﺒﺎﺳﻰ‬ ‫‪383‬‬ ‫ﻗﻠﻌﺔ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺮ ﻭ ﺳﻨﮓﻧﻮﺷﺘﺔ ﺳﺎﺳﺎﻧﻰ ﻧﻮﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ؛ ﺍﺣﻤﺪﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺳﺪﻯ‬ ‫‪399‬‬ ‫ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻰ ﺧﺸﺖﻫﺎﻯ ﺑﻪﻛﺎﺭﺭﻓﺘﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺎﺯﻩﻫﺎﻯ ﻣﺤﻮﻃﺔ ﻫﮕﻤﺘﺎﻧﻪ؛ ﺳﭙﻴﺪﻩ ﻣﺎﺯﻳﺎﺭ‬ ‫‪411‬‬ ‫ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻰ ﻧﻘﺶ ﭘﺮﻧﺪﻩ ﺑﺮ ﺳﻔﺎﻝﻫﺎﻯ ﻣﻜﺸﻮﻓﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻛﺎﻭﺵﻫﺎﻯ ﻻﻳﻪﻧﮕﺎﺭﻯ ﺗﭙﺔ ﻫﮕﻤﺘﺎﻧﻪ؛ ﺭﻭﻳﺎ ﺗﺎﺝﺑﺨﺶ‬ ‫‪419‬‬ ‫ﺑﺎﺯﻧﮕﺮﻯ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦﮔﺬﺍﺭﻯ ﻧﺴﺒﻰ ﻫﮕﻤﺘﺎﻧﻪ ﺑﺮ ﭘﺎﻳﺔ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪﻫﺎﻯ ﻣﻮﺍﺩ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮕﻰ؛ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﮋﺑﺮﻯ‬ ‫‪439‬‬ ‫ﻃﺎﻕ ﻛﺴﺮﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﺳﭙﺎﻧﺒﺮ ـ ﺗﻴﺴﻔﻮﻥ؛ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﺵ ﺑﺎﺯﺩﻳﺪ؛ ﺣﻤﻴﺪ ﻓﻬﻴﻤﻰ‬ ‫‪451‬‬ ‫ﺁﺷﻮﺭ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻨﻈﺮ ﻓﺮﺍﻧﺴﻮﻯﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻰﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻗﺮﻥ ﻧﻮﺯﺩﻫﻢ؛ ﻛﺎﻣﻴﺎﺭ ﻋﺒﺪﻯ‬ ‫‪467‬‬ ‫ﻳﺎﺩﺩﺍﺷﺖﻫﺎﻳﻰ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﺓ ﭼﻬﺎﺭﻃﺎﻗﻰﻫﺎﻯ ﻗﺼﺮﺷﻴﺮﻳﻦ ﻭ ﺍﻳﺰﺩﺧﻮﺍﺳﺖ؛ ﻭﻟﻔﺮﺍﻡ ﻛﻼﻳﺲ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﮔﺮﺩﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﻣﻬﺮﺩﺍﺩ ﺳﻌﻴﺪﻯ‬ ‫ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪﻫﺎﻯ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻰ‬ ‫‪480‬‬ ‫ﻭﺻﻠﻪﻫﺎﻯ ﻧﺎﺟﻮﺭ‪ :‬ﻫﻴﺌﺖ ﺍﻣﻨﺎﻯ ﻣﻮﺯﻩ‪ ،‬ﺩﻻﻻﻥ ﺍﺷﻴﺎء ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺎﻧﻰ‪ ،‬ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺸﮕﺮﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﻣﺄﻣﻮﺭﺍﻥ ﺩﻭﻟﺘﻰ؛ ﺍﺳﻜﺎﺭ ﻣﺎﺳﻜﺎﺭﻻ‬ ‫‪488‬‬ ‫ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ ﺑﺤﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﻛﻮچﻧﺸﻴﻨﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﺻﺮﻯ ﻭ ﻟﺮ ﺟﻨﻮﺏ ﻏﺮﺑﻰ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ؛ ﻣﻌﺼﻮﻣﻪ ﻛﻴﻤﻴﺎﻳﻰ‬ ‫‪498‬‬ ‫ﺭﻳﺰـ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺎﻥﺷﻨﺎﺳﻰ‪ :‬ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭﻯ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺎﺯﺷﻨﺎﺳﻰ ﻛﺎﺭﻛﺮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺭﻭﻧﺪ ﻭ ﻛﺎﺭﺑﺮﻯ ﻓﻀﺎ؛ ﺳﭙﻴﺪﻩ ﺳﻌﻴﺪﻯ‬ ‫‪502‬‬ ‫ﮔِﻞ ُﻣﻬﺮ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ـ ﺍﺳﭙﻬﺒﺪ ﻧﻴﻤﺮﻭﺯ؛ ﺗﻮﺭﺝ ﺩﺭﻳﺎﻳﻰ ﻭ ﻛﻴﻮﺍﻥ ﺻﻔﺪﺭﻯ‬ ‫‪512‬‬ ‫ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺳﺎﺳﺎﻧﻰ؛ ﭘﻴﺮﻓﺮﺍﻧﭽﺴﻜﻮ ﻛﻠﻴﻴﺮﻯ‬ ‫ﻧﻜﺎﺗﻰ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﺓ ﻛﺎﺭﻛﺮﺩ ﺑﻨﺎﻯ ﺳﻨﮕﻰ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻌﻤﺎﺭﻯ‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫‪526‬‬ ‫ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻂ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻰ ـ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻯ ﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺳﺎﺳﺎﻧﻰ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺷﺖ ﻣﻐﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺁﺫﺭﺑﺎﻳﺠﺎﻥ ـ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ؛ ﻛﺮﻳﻢ ﻋﻠﻴﺰﺍﺩﻩ‬ ‫‪534‬‬ ‫ﻗﺪﻳﻤﻰﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﺁﺗﺸﻜﺪﻩﻫﺎ‪ :‬ﺍﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﻫﻰ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻴﺖ؛ ﺑﺎﺭﺑﺎﺭﺍ ﻛﺎﺋﻴﻢ‬ ‫‪546‬‬ ‫ﺍﻛﺒﺎﺗﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺎﻥ؛ ﺭﻣﻰ ﺑﻮﺷﺎﺭﻻ‬ ‫ﺗﭙﺔ ﻫﮕﻤﺘﺎﻧﻪ ﻭ‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫‪552‬‬ ‫ﺑﺎﺯﻧﮕﺮﻯ ﮔﺎﻩﻧﮕﺎﺭﻯ ﻋﺼﺮﺁﻫﻦ ﮔﻴﻼﻥ ﺑﺎ ﺑﻬﺮﻩﮔﻴﺮﻯ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻔﺎﻝﻫﺎﻯ ﻣﻜﺸﻮﻓﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺗﭙﺔ ﺟﻼﻟﻴﻪ؛ ﺗﺎﻛﻮﺭﺍ ﺁﺩﺍﭼﻰ‬ ‫‪558‬‬ ‫ﭼﻨﺪ ﻛﻤﺮﺑﻨﺪ ﻓﻠﺰﻯ ﺍﺯ ﺣﺴﻨﻠﻮ؛ ﻛﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﺱ‪ .‬ﺭﺍﺑﻴﻨﺴﻮﻥ‬ ‫‪570‬‬ ‫ﻇﺮﻭﻑ ﺳﻨﮕﻰ ﺗﭙﺔ ﺣﺼﺎﺭ‪ :‬ﺳﺎﺧﺖ‪ ،‬ﮔﻮﻧﻪﺷﻨﺎﺳﻰ ﻭ ﭘﺮﺍﻛﻨﺶ‪ ،‬ﻫﺰﺍﺭﺓ ﭼﻬﺎﺭﻡ ﺗﺎ ﺩﻭﻡ پ‪.‬ﻡ؛ ﻣﻴﺸﻞ ﻛﺎﺯﺍﻧﻮﺍ ﻭ ﺻﺪﻳﻘﻪ ﭘﻴﺮﺍﻥ‬ ‫‪586‬‬ ‫ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻬﺮﺳﺎﺯﻯ ُﻛﻨﺎﺭﺻﻨﺪﻝ ﺟﻨﻮﺑﻰ‪ ،‬ﻣﻼﺣﻈﺎﺕ ﮔﺎﻩﻧﮕﺎﺭﻯ ﻧﺴﺒﻰ ﻭ ﻣﻄﻠﻖ ﺩﺭ ﻫﺰﺍﺭﺓ ﺳﻮﻡ ﭘﻴﺶﺍﺯﻣﻴﻼﺩ ؛ ﻫﺎﻟﻰ ﭘﻴﺘﻤﻦ‬ ‫‪596‬‬ ‫ﻣﺮﺩﮔﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﻫﺰﺍﺭﺓ ﭘﻨﺠﻢ پ‪.‬ﻡ ﺩﺭﺓ ﺑﻼﻏﻰ‪ :‬ﻧﺨﺴﺘﻴﻦ ﺷﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺍﺯ ﺁﺩﺍﺏ ﺗﺪﻓﻴﻦ ﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺑﺎﻛﻮﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺟﻨﻮﺏ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ؛ ﺑﺎﺭﺑﺎﺭﺍ ﻫﻠﻮﻳﻨﮓ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻛِﺮﺳﻰ ﻟﻮﺭﻧﺲ ﻭ ﻣﮋﮔﺎﻥ ﺳﻴﺪﻳﻦ‬ ‫‪610‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﮕﻮﻯ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﻃﻰ ﻓﺮﺍﻳﻨﺪ ﮔﺬﺍﺭ ﺍﺯ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓﻫﺎﻯ ﻣﺲ ـ ﺳﻨﮕﻰ ﺑﻪ ﻋﺼﺮ ﻣﻔﺮﻍ ﺩﺭ ﺷﺮﻕ ﺷﻤﺎﻟﻰ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﺮ ﭘﺎﻳﺔ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺔ‬ ‫ﺳﻔﺎﻝﻫﺎ؛ ﻋﻤﺮﺍﻥ ﮔﺎﺭﺍژﻳﺎﻥ‬ ‫‪622‬‬ ‫ﻧﺎﭘﻴﻮﺳﺘﮕﻰﻫﺎ ﻭ ﭘﻴﻮﺳﺘﮕﻰﻫﺎ‪ :‬ﭘﻴﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩ ﻳﻚ ﮔﺎﻩﻧﮕﺎﺭﻯ ﺑﺮ ﭘﺎﻳﺔ ﺷﻮﺍﻫﺪﻯ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻮﺳﻨﮕﻰ ُﺗﻞﺑَﺸﻰ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﺭﺱ؛ ﺭﺍﻳﻨﻬﺎﺭﺩ ﺑ ِ ِﺮﻧﺒﻚ‬ ‫‪634‬‬ ‫ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺖ ﻏﺬﺍﻳﻰ ﻭ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻰ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻰ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻮﺳﻨﮕﻰ ﺗﺎ ﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺑﺎﻛﻮﻥ؛ ﺳﻮﺯﺍﻥ ُﭘﻼﻙ‬ ‫‪646‬‬ ‫ﺍﺯﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﺭﺳﻨﺠﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺍﻫﻤﻴﺖ ﺟﻨﻮﺏ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺑﺸﺮﻯ؛ ﺁﻛﻴﺮﺍ ﺳﻮﻧﻜﻰ‬ ‫ﭘﺮﻭژﺓ ﭘﻴﺶ‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫ﻓﻬﺮﺳﺖ‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫ﭘﻴﺶﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺸﻜﺪﺓ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺎﻥﺷﻨﺎﺳﻰ‬ ‫ﻋﺒﺎﺱ ﻣﻘﺪﻡ‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫ﺳﺨﻦ ﺁﻏﺎﺯﻳﻦ‬ ‫ﺣﻤﻴﺪ ﻓﻬﻴﻤﻰ ﻭ ﻛﺮﻳﻢ ﻋﻠﻴﺰﺍﺩﻩ‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫ﻳﺎﺩﺩﺍﺷﺖ‬ ‫ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﺁﺫﺭﻧﻮﺵ‬ ‫‪17‬‬ ‫ﮔﺬﺭﻯ ﺑﺮ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻰﻧﺎﻣﺔ ﻣﺴﻌﻮﺩ ﺁﺫﺭﻧﻮﺵ‬ ‫ﺭﻭﻳﺎ ﺗﺎﺝﺑﺨﺶ ﻭ ﺣﻤﻴﺪ ﻓﻬﻴﻤﻰ‬ ‫ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪﻫﺎﻯ ﻓﺎﺭﺳﻰ‬ ‫‪39‬‬ ‫ﺩﺍﻻﻥ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ؛ ﻭﺭﻭﺩ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻧﺨﺴﺘﻴﻦ ﺑﻪ ﺳﺮﺯﻣﻴﻦ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻳﺪﮔﺎﻩ ﺑﻮﻡﺷﻨﺎﺳﻰ؛ ﺳﺎﻣﺎﻥ ﺣﻴﺪﺭﻯﮔﻮﺭﺍﻥ‬ ‫‪59‬‬ ‫ﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﭘﺎﺭﻳﻨﻪﺳﻨﮕﻰ ﻧﻮﻳﻦ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺟﺎﻳﮕﺎﻩ ﺁﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺟﻨﻮﺏ ﻏﺮﺏ ﺁﺳﻴﺎ؛ ﺍﻟﻬﺎﻡ ﻗﺼﻴﺪﻳﺎﻥ‬ ‫‪79‬‬ ‫ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺸﻰ ﺑﺮ ﺍﺑﺴﻴﺪﻳﻦﻫﺎﻯ ﺍﻭﺍﺧﺮ ﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﻧﻮﺳﻨﮕﻰ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺤﻮﻃﺔ ﻗﻮﺷﺎﺗﭙﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺸﻜﻴﻦﺷﻬﺮ؛ ﺣﺴﻦ ﺩﺭﺧﺸﻰ ﻭ ﻋﻠﻴﺮﺿﺎ ﻫﮋﺑﺮﻯ ﻧﻮﺑﺮﻯ‬ ‫‪85‬‬ ‫ﻛﻮﻫﻰ ﻓﺮﻳﻢ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺯ؛ ﻛﺎﻭﺵ ﺗﭙﺔ ﺳﺪ؛ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎﻫﻔﺮﻭﺯﻯ‬ ‫ﺷﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﻧﻮﺳﻨﮕﻰ ﺗﺎ ﺍﻭﺍﻳﻞ ﻋﺼﺮ ﻣﻔﺮﻍ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺷﺖ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫‪99‬‬ ‫ﺷﻬﺪﺍﺩ‪ ،‬ﺩﻳﺮﻭﺯ ﻭ ﺍﻣﺮﻭﺯ؛ ﻣﻴﺮﻋﺎﺑﺪﻳﻦ ﻛﺎﺑﻠﻰ‬ ‫‪109‬‬ ‫ﺷﻮﺍﻫﺪﻯ ﺑﺮ ﺭﺷﺪ ﺗﺨﺼﺺ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﻩﻫﺎﻯ ﺩﻭﻡ ﻭ ﺳﻮﻡ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﺭ ﺷﻬﺮﺳﻮﺧﺘﻪ ﺑﺮ ﭘﺎﻳﺔ ﺩﺳﺘﺎﻭﺭﺩﻫﺎﻯ ﻛﺎﻭﺵ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺮﺑﻊ ‪O‬؛‬ ‫‪125‬‬ ‫ﺗﭙﺔ ﺧﺎﻧﻴﻠﻪ‪ :‬ﺷﻮﺍﻫﺪﻯ ﻧﻮ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺭﻫﺎﻯ ﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﻣﺲﻭﺳﻨﮓ ﻭ ﺁﻏﺎﺯ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻰ ﺩﺭ ﺷﻤﺎﻝﻏﺮﺑﻰ ﺩﺷﺖ ﻛﺮﻣﺎﻧﺸﺎﻩ‪ ،‬ﺯﺍﮔﺮﺱ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﻯ؛‬ ‫‪141‬‬ ‫ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺸﻰ ﺑﺮ ﺁﺩﺍﺏ ﺗﺪﻓﻴﻦ ﻋﺼﺮ ﻣﻔﺮﻍ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻳﻨﺨﻮﺍﻩ ﺗﭙﻪ؛ ﻣﮋﮔﺎﻥ ﺳﻴﺪﻳﻦ‬ ‫‪151‬‬ ‫ﺑﻌﺪﻯ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻰ ﺩﺷﺖﻫﺎﻯ ﻛﺮﺝ ﻭ ﻗﺰﻭﻳﻦ؛ ﻟﻴﻠﻰ ﻧﻴﺎﻛﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﻛﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩ ﺳﺎﻣﺎﻧﻪﻫﺎﻯ ﺁﮔﺎﻫﻰﻫﺎﻯ ﺟﻐﺮﺍﻓﻴﺎﻳﻰ؛ ﺩﺍﺩﻩﻫﺎﻯ ﺳﻪ‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫‪157‬‬ ‫ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻰ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺎﻥﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻰ ﻣﻬﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺑﻠﻮﻙ ﺍَﻧﺎﺭﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺷﻬﺮﺳﺘﺎﻥ ﺩﻫﻠﺮﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﺳﺘﺎﻥ ﺍﻳﻼﻡ؛ ﻣﺤﺴﻦ ﺯﻳﺪﻯ‬ ‫‪169‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﮕﻮﻯ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺭﻯ ﺩﺷﺖ ﻓﺎﺭﺳﺎﻥ ﺍﺯ ﭘﻴﺶﺍﺯﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﺎ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻰ؛ ﻋﻠﻴﺮﺿﺎ ﺧﺴﺮﻭﺯﺍﺩﻩ‬ ‫‪189‬‬ ‫ﭼﺸﻢﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺎﻥﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻰ ﺳﺎﺣﻞ ﺷﺮﻗﻰ ﺑﺎﺗﻼﻕ ﮔﺎﻭﺧﻮﻧﻰ؛ ﻣﺤﻤﺪﺍﺳﻤﺎﻋﻴﻞ ﺍﺳﻤﻌﻴﻠﻰ ﺟﻠﻮﺩﺍﺭ‬ ‫‪207‬‬ ‫ﺍﻫﻤﻴﺖ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶﻫﺎﻯ ﻣﺲﺷﻨﺎﺳﻰ ﭘﻴﺶﺍﺯﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ؛ ﻭﻳﻨﺴﻨﺖ ﭘﻴﮕﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﮔﺮﺩﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﻛﻴﻮﺍﻥ ﺷﺮﻳﻔﻰ‬ ‫‪227‬‬ ‫ﺩﺳﺘﺎﻭﺭﺩ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻰ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺎﻥﺷﻨﺎﺳﻰ ﺣﻮﺯﺓ ﺳﺪ ﺧﺮﺳﺎﻥ‪2‬؛ ﭘﺎﺭﺳﺎ ﻗﺎﺳﻤﻰ‬ ‫‪241‬‬ ‫ﺷﻤﺸﻴﺮﮔﺎﻩ؛ ﻧﺨﺴﺘﻴﻦ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺎﻥﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻰ؛ ﺣﻤﻴﺪ ﻓﻬﻴﻤﻰ‬ ‫‪259‬‬ ‫ﻣﻄﻼﻛﻮﻩ‪ ،‬ﻧﺨﺴﺘﻴﻦ ﻣﺤﻮﻃﺔ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺭﻯ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻰﺷﺪﺓ ﻋﺼﺮﺁﻫﻦ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻣﻠﺶ؛ ﻭﻟﻰ ﺟﻬﺎﻧﻰ‬ ‫‪271‬‬ ‫ﻧﮕﺎﻫﻰ ﺑﻪ ﭘﻴﺸﻴﻨﺔ ﺗﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﻣﻮﺍ ِﺩ ﺑﺨﻮﺭ ﻭ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﺔ ﺁﻥ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﻣﻮﺍ ِﺩ ﻋﻄﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﺁﺭﺍﻳﺸﻰ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭﻭﻳﻰ ﻭ ﺍﺩﻭﻳﺔ ﻏﺬﺍﻳﻰ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺎﻥ؛‬ ‫‪289‬‬ ‫ﺁﺭﺍﻣﮕﺎﻩ ﺯﻳﺮﺯﻣﻴﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﻴﻤﺎﻳﻰ ﺩﺭ ﺻﺎﻟﺢﺩﺍﻭﻭﺩ؛ ﻣﻬﺪﻯ ﺭﻫﺒﺮ‬ ‫‪315‬‬ ‫ﻋﻤﺎﺭﺕ ﺧﺴﺮﻭ ﺩﺭ ﭘﺮﺗﻮ ﻧﺨﺴﺘﻴﻦ ﻓﺼﻞ ﻛﺎﻭﺵﻫﺎﻯ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺎﻥ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻰ؛ ﻳﻮﺳﻒ ﻣﺮﺍﺩﻯ‬ ‫ﺣﺴﻴﻦ ﻣﺮﺍﺩﻯ ﻭ ﺳﻴﺪﻣﻨﺼﻮﺭ ﺳﻴﺪﺳﺠﺎﺩﻯ‬ ‫ﻳﻮﺳﻒ ﺣﺴﻦﺯﺍﺩﻩ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻛﺮﻣﻰ‪ ،‬ﻓﺮﺍﻧﻚ ﺑﺤﺮﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻣﻰ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎﻝ ﻃﺎﻫﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﺍﻛﺮﻡ ﻃﻬﻤﺎﺳﺒﻰ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻴﺮﺿﺎ ﻣﺮﺍﺩﻯ ﺑﻴﺴﺘﻮﻧﻰ ﻭ ﻓﺮﻳﺪﻭﻥ ﺑﻴﮕﻠﺮﻯ‬ ‫ﺁﺭﻣﺎﻥ ﺷﻴﺸﻪﮔﺮ‬ ‫ﻓﻬﻴﻤﻰ‪ ،‬ﺣﻤﻴﺪ‪- ١٣٥٣ ،‬‬ ‫ﺳﺮﺷﻨﺎﺳﻨﺎﻣﻪ‪:‬‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫ﭘﺎﺳﺪﺍﺷﺖ ﻳﺎﺩ ﻣﺴﻌﻮﺩ ﺁﺫﺭﻧﻮﺵ‪ /‬ﺑﻪ ﻛﻮﺷﺶ ﺣﻤﻴﺪ ﻓﻬﻴﻤﻰ ﻭ ﻛﺮﻳﻢ ﻋﻠﻴﺰﺍﺩﻩ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺭﻧﺎﻣﻪ‪ :‬ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪﻫﺎﻳﻰ ﺩﺭ‬ ‫ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﻧﺎﻡ ﭘﺪﻳﺪﺁﻭﺭ‪:‬‬ ‫ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥﻧﮕﺎﺭ ‪.١٣٩١‬‬ ‫ﻣﺸﺨﺼﺎﺕ ﻧﺸﺮ‪:‬‬ ‫‪ 664/٦٦٤‬ﺹ‪ :.‬ﻣﺼﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﺟﺪﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭ‪.‬؛ ‪ ٢٩ × ٢٢‬ﺱﻡ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻣﺸﺨﺼﺎﺕ ﻇﺎﻫﺮی‪:‬‬ ‫ﻳﺎﺩﻧﺎﻣﮥ ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺭﺍﻥ؛ ‪. ١‬ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺎﻥﺷﻨﺎﺳﻰ؛ ‪.١‬‬ ‫ﻓﺮﻭﺳﺖ‪:‬‬ ‫‪٩٧٨-٦٠٠-٩٢٩٠٦-١-١‬‬ ‫ﺷﺎﺑﮏ‪:‬‬ ‫ﻓﺎﺭﺳﻰ ـ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻰ‬ ‫ﻳﺎﺩﺩﺍﺷﺖ‪:‬‬ ‫ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩﮔﺬﺍﺭی ﺻﻔﺤﺎﺕ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻭ ﺧﻂ ﻓﺎﺭﺳﻰ ﻭ ﻻﺗﻴﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻳﺎﺩﺩﺍﺷﺖ‪:‬‬ ‫ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻨﺎﻣﻪ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻳﺎﺩﺩﺍﺷﺖ‪:‬‬ ‫ﺁﺫﺭﻧﻮﺵ‪ ،‬ﻣﺴﻌﻮﺩ‪.١٣٨٧ - ١٣٢٤ ،‬‬ ‫ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ‪:‬‬ ‫ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺎﻥﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻥ ‪ --‬ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ‪ --‬ﺳﺮﮔﺬﺷﺘﻨﺎﻣﻪ‬ ‫ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ‪:‬‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻴﺰﺍﺩﻩ‪ ،‬ﻛﺮﻳﻢ‪- ١٣٥٣ ،‬‬ ‫ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻪ ﺍﻓﺰﻭﺩﻩ‪:‬‬ ‫‪٩ ١٣٩١‬ﻑ‪٤‬ﺁ‪CC١١٥/‬‬ ‫ﺭﺩﻩﺑﻨﺪی ﻛﻨﮕﺮﻩ‪:‬‬ ‫‪٩٣٠/١٠٩٢‬‬ ‫ﺭﺩﻩﺑﻨﺪی ﺩﻳﻮﻳﻰ‪:‬‬ ‫ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺸﻨﺎﺳﻰ ﻣﻠﻰ‪٢٦٦٢٤٣٩ :‬‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫ﭘﺎﺳﺪﺍﺷﺖ ﻳﺎﺩ ﻣﺴﻌﻮﺩ ﺁﺫﺭﻧﻮﺵ‬ ‫ﻧﺎﻣﻮﺭﻧﺎﻣﻪ؛ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪﻫﺎﻳﻰ ﺩﺭ‬ ‫ﺑﻪ ﻛﻮﺷﺶ‪ :‬ﺣﻤﻴﺪ ﻓﻬﻴﻤﻰ ﻭ ﻛﺮﻳﻢ ﻋﻠﻴﺰﺍﺩﻩ‬ ‫ﻭﻳﺮﺍﻳﺶ ﻓﺎﺭﺳﻰ‪ :‬ﻣﻬﺮﺍﻥ ﻏﻼﻣﻰ‪ ،‬ﺣﻤﻴﺪ ﻓﻬﻴﻤﻰ ﻭ ﺍﻟﻬﻪ ﺳﺎﻻﺭ‬ ‫ﻭﻳﺮﺍﻳﺶ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻰ‪ :‬ﺳﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﭘﻼﻙ‬ ‫ﺑﺮﮔﺮﺩﺍﻥ ﭼﻜﻴﺪﻩﻫﺎ‪ :‬ﻣﻬﺮﺩﺍﺩ ﺳﻌﻴﺪﻯ‪ ،‬ﺣﻤﻴﺪ ﻓﻬﻴﻤﻰ ﻭ ﻣﮋﮔﺎﻥ ﺳﻴﺪﻳﻦ‬ ‫ﺁﻣﺎﺩﻩﺳﺎﺯﻯ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺍﻣﻮﺭ ﺍﺟﺮﺍﻳﻰ‪ :‬ﺣﻤﻴﺪ ﻓﻬﻴﻤﻰ ﻭ ﻣﻬﺮﺍﻥ ﻏﻼﻣﻰ‬ ‫ﻧﮕﺎﺭﺵ ﻧﺴﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ‪ :‬ﺍﺳﺘﺎﺩ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﻣﺮﺍﺩﻯ‬ ‫ﻃﺮﺍﺣﻰ‪ ،‬ﺻﻔﺤﻪﺁﺭﺍﻳﻰ ﻭ ﺑﺎﺯﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﺵ ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮﻫﺎ‪ :‬ﻭﺣﻴﺪ ﺭﻭﺯﺑﻬﺎﻧﻰ‬ ‫ﻧﻈﺎﺭﺕ ﺑﺮ ﭼﺎپ‪ :‬ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﺎﻗﺮﻯ ﺑﺮﻭﺝ ﻭ ﻣﻬﺮﺍﻥ ﻏﻼﻣﻰ‬ ‫ﻟﻴﺘﻮﮔﺮﺍﻓﻰ‪ :‬ﻫﻮﺭﺭﻧﮓ ‪3‬ـ ‪88861661‬؛ ﭼﺎپ ﺟﻠﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺁﺳﺘﺮﻭﺑﺪﺭﻗﻪ‪ :‬ژﻳﻚ ‪ ،66464061‬ﺍﺭﺩﻳﺒﻬﺸﺖﻧﻮ ‪77531672‬؛‬ ‫ﭼﺎپ ﻣﺘﻦ‪ :‬ﻣﻴﻼﺩ ﻧﻮﺭ ‪4‬ـ‪ 88313883‬ﻭ ﻧﻘﺶ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ‪77998140‬؛ ﺻﺤﺎﻓﻰ‪ :‬ﺧﺮﺩﺍﺩ ﺳﺒﺰ ‪.88313885‬‬ ‫ﻧﺎﺷﺮ‪ :‬ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥﻧﮕﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﺷﺎﺑﻚ‪978-600-92906-1-1 :‬‬ ‫ﺷﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﻛﺘﺎﺏﺷﻨﺎﺳﻰ ﻣﻠﻰ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‪2662439 :‬‬ ‫ﭼﺎپ ﻧﺨﺴﺖ‪ :‬ﭘﺎﻳﻴﺰ ‪1391‬‬ ‫ﺷﻤﺎﺭﮔﺎﻥ‪ 1500 :‬ﻧﺴﺨﻪ‬ ‫ﺑﻬﺎ‪ 32000 :‬ﺗﻮﻣﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﺑﺎ ﺳﭙﺎﺱ ﺍﺯ ﮔﻨﺠﻴﻨﻪ ﻧﻘﺶ ﺟﻬﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻰ‪ :‬ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﺿﻠﻊ ﺷﻤﺎﻝﻏﺮﺑﻰ ﻣﻴﺪﺍﻥ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺏ‪ ،‬ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍﻯ ﺧﻴﺎﺑﺎﻥ ﺁﺯﺍﺩﻯ‪ ،‬ﻛﻮﭼﺔ ﺟﻨﺘﻰ‪ ،‬ﺷﻤﺎﺭﺓ ‪ ،7‬ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ‪ ،7‬ﺗﻠﻔﻦ‪(021) 66907428 :‬‬ ‫ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻰ ﭘﺴﺘﻰ‪» :‬ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﺻﻨﺪﻭﻕ ﭘﺴﺘﻰ‪431‬ـ ‪ :13145‬ﮔﻨﺠﻴﻨﻪ ﻧﻘﺶ ﺟﻬﺎﻥ«‪www.ganj.ir ،‬‬ ‫»ﻫﻤﺔ ﺣﻘﻮﻕ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﻧﺎﺷﺮ ﻣﺤﻔﻮﻅ ﺍﺳﺖ«‬