sign in sign up
<<
Home , Levallois technique

Intl. J. Humanities (2010) Vol. 17 (2): (1-12)

Reassessment of the Preliminary Report on of Southwestern Iran (Hole & Flannery 1967)

Hamed Vahdati Nasab1

Received: 13/12/2009 Accepted: 23/1/2010

Abstract There has been more than four decades since Frank Hole and Kent Flannery conducted a field expedition in central Zagros Mountains located in western Iran, in 1963. From then onward, numerous discoveries and field projects have been done in this region. Some of these findings may contradict the report of the original survey. Although the goal of this article by no means, is to criticize the 1967 report, it sounds unavoidable to incorporate the new discoveries in it. For instance, the author of this Downloaded from eijh.modares.ac.ir at 23:58 IRST on Friday October 1st 2021 article believes that the twelve missing sites in the 1963 survey were found later, hence; new discoveries in case of the presence of Levallois technique in the Zagros Mountains could change our understanding regarding the Middle of Zagros.

Keywords: Zagros Mountains, , Levallois technique

1 . Assistant Professor, Department of , Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran. Email: [email protected]

1 Reassessment of the Preliminary Report … Intl. J. Humanities (2010) Vol. 17 (2)

Introduction the Khorramabad valley revealed as one of the As a part of Prehistoric Project of Oriental Institute, most promising ones, with many large fresh University of Chicago, two of the Late water channels and . In their report, Hole Braidwood's students (Frank Hole and Kent and Flannery state: Flannery) conducted some archaeological surveys "Thus far we have located seventeen and excavations in west and southwestern Iran in Paleolithic sites which overlook the 1961. The report of this field surveys was Khorramabad valley, and it is likely that more published in 1967 entitled "the Prehistory of could be found by intensive survey" (Hole and Southwestern Iran: Preliminary Report" (Hole and Flannery 1967: 151) Flannery 1967). Considering the time elapsed from Based on the survey report, although seventeen the date of the original field work as as Paleolithic sites were marked, only five of them numerous theoretical and technical innovations and were mentioned in the text and subsequently discoveries in the world, Paleolithic archaeology in selected for further indepth examinations (Caves: general and Paleolithic archaeology of Iran in Ghamari, Kunji, Yafteh, rock shelters: Gar particular, the need for reassessing the preliminary Arjeneh, and Pasangar), and there is no report seems unavoidable. Needless to say, the indication of the other twelve sites. Considering 1967 field expedition was among the most the strategic location of the Khorramabad valley scientifically advanced expeditions (e.g., it took and in order to complete the original survey, a into account interdisciplinary sciences such as field survey was conducted in the winter of 1999 Archaeobotany, Zooarchaeology, Paleoclimate, by the author and his colleagues from the Iranian

Downloaded from eijh.modares.ac.ir at 23:58 IRST on Friday October 1st 2021 Ethnoarchaeology, etc). As such, the current article Center for Archaeological Research (ICAR). tries to incorporate the new discoveries and This field expedition re-emphasized on the great progress in the Paleolithic archaeology of Iran into potential of the Khorramabad valley and the 1967 original report. provided detail information on 21 sites (five Further, this article would be focusing only more sites were included) assuming that the on Paleolithic studies of the original report and twelve missing sites might be among them integrate new data derived from other (Roustaei et al. 2002, 2004). prehistoric periods in the proposed region. Continuity of Industries Missing Sites One of the key questions highlighted in the During the course of studies, Hole and Flannery original report was the issue of continuity surveyed 15 valleys in western Iran, in which among different Paleolithic industries:

2 Vahdati Nasab H. Intl. J. Humanities (2010) Vol. 17 (2)

"A critical question in the prehistory of the assemblages in order to apply some type of Zagros Mountains is the extent which the relative chronologies. As such, hard hammers , Baradostian and Zarzain and direct percussion technique could be one industries constitute to a single living tradition. of the indicatives of the , Are there discontinuities between the three core preparation and Levallois technique could industries, or does it grow out of the antecedent have been used to detect the Middle stage?" (Hole and Flannery 1967: 151) Paleolithic, and profusion of blades and use of To address this question, a comparative pressure flaking is among the most important analysis of lithics collected from the five factors to assign an assemblage to the Upper excavated sites was made. As can be seen in Paleolithic period. Figure 2 of the original report (Hole and The original report used the index of Flannery 1967: 152), the comparative study secondary retouched to the waste flakes encompassed only the most typologically (Hole and Flannery 1967: 155, Table II) to distinguished pieces, and it seems that the role propose some patterns to evaluate the degree of of was a bit overshadowed by efficiency from Middle to the overemphasizing on typology. As an Epipaleolithic period at Khorramabad sites. illustration, cores, which are considered by Concerning the Mousterian occupations most workers as one of the most important (Ghamari and Kunji) this index is 38, for the artifacts to address issues related to technology early of Yafteh is 35, for (Eren et al. 2008; Wallace and Shea 2006), middle and late upper Paleolithic of Yafteh are

Downloaded from eijh.modares.ac.ir at 23:58 IRST on Friday October 1st 2021 were neglected: 10, and 7, and 4.5 for the upper Paleolithic of "This analysis ignores tools which are Pasangar and 9 for the Epipaleolithic of the relatively undiagnostic; such as… cores, core same site. fragments, and waste flakes…" (Hole and Undoubtedly, there has been a significant Flannery 1967: 154-155) improvement in knapping techniques, selection Cores reconstructs the degree of access to of raw materials, and forging strategies from the raw material (Dibble 1995), plus study of the lower Paleolithic to the Epipaleolithic chaînes opératoires is crucial to establish the period. However, the sites selected for this technological frame work used by the knappers comparison must provide homogeneity in (Kuhn 1995: 31-33). As a matter of fact, in geomorphology and land form in order to most of the recent , workers evaluate the degree of knapping efficiency in conduct technotypological examinations on the different periods. Among the selected sites,

3 Reassessment of the Preliminary Report … Intl. J. Humanities (2010) Vol. 17 (2)

only three (Ghamari, Kunji, and Yafteh) could since it was first recognized in the nineteen be considered geomorphologicly homogenous, century (Mellars 1996: 61). One of the and the rest have potentials to be considered as appealing points concerning Levallois base camps. The other one (Pasangar) is a technique is the abundance of various small with severely eroded explanations for it, which some sound more or entrance, which by no means (e.g., size, shape, less contradictory. location, and function) could be considered As an example Bordes -one of the pioneers equivalent to the former three. Therefore, it in the study of Middle Paleolithic lithic seems that clustering all of the mentioned sites industries- has suggested that Levallois and applying the index of secondary retouched technique was originally invented to distinguish tools to the waste flakes equally to them flakes with the signs of scars on their dorsal eventually misled the research and has part, which these scares were fashioned during produced some arguable results. the process of core preparation (Bordes 1961). Perhaps Böeda's description of Levallois Levallois Technique technique may be considered as one of the most One of the technical issues touched by the Hole accepted ones. Based on this description, two and Flannery is the diminutive presence of main stages were identified for the core Levallois technique in the Luristan Mousterian: preparation process: first, preparing continuous "The technique of the Luristan Mousterian is platforms all around the core by striking around non-Levallois, like that observed elsewhere in it, second shaping the core by striking on the

Downloaded from eijh.modares.ac.ir at 23:58 IRST on Friday October 1st 2021 the Zagros (e.g., Shanidar, Hazar Merd, platforms that have already been prepared in the Warwasi, Bisitun)" (Hole and Flannery first stage (Böeda 1988). The result of this 1967:155) process is to predict the flake shape before Abundance of Levallois technique in an detaching it from the core. assemblage is one of the key factors to assign Lack of enough concentration on the such to the Middle Paleolithic preparation technique features on the (Monnier 2006). The term Levallois was first 's platforms, and underestimating the used in the early 1860 to describe large flakes importance of dorsal scars patterns on the discovered at the suburb of Levallois-Perret in Levallois flakes, as well as lack of substantial Paris (Mortilet 1883: 240, 255). This technique acceptance concerning the concept of has been considered by many authorities as an Levallois technique in mid 50s, led Carlton index fossil of Middle Paleolithic industries Coon to conclude that the Levallois technique

4 Vahdati Nasab H. Intl. J. Humanities (2010) Vol. 17 (2)

was not among the major aspects of Zagros mention that since the time of original Mousterian. In his original report, although excavations in the Khorramabad region (early Coon clearly identified and mentioned various 60s), there have been numerous surveys and Levallois techniques for excavation at Bisitun excavations in this region and adjacent rock shelter in Zagros (Coon 1951: 59, Table geographical areas that some led to the report 10C), however; H. L. Movius who was in of abundance of Levallois technique in the charge of lithic analysis in the excavation Zagros mountain sites. As an illustration, claimed that the Levallois technique did not Mortensen claimed the presence of Levallois play significant rule in knapping activities flakes at two of his sites (Huchi and Villa) in the Zagros region (Coon 1951: 90-91). The located in Hulilan Valley in south of Luristan same scenario was repeated by Skinner who (Mortensen 1974a, b). In 2000, some surveys studied some portions of the Bisitun Middle in the northern Zagros led to the discovery of Paleolithic assemblages as part of his doctorate some Paleolithic sites, among them Varjo- dissertation and eventually he proposed that Chai revealed some Levallois elements lack of Levallois technique is among the major (Biglari and Ghaffari 2004). One year later, a features of the Zagros Middle Paleolithic site near the city of Kermanshah industries (Skinner 1965). (Central Zagros) named Do-Eshkaft was Consequently, some significant recorded by Iranian archaeologists. The improvements on recognition of various further analysis of its lithic materials revealed Levallois techniques (Baumler and Speth its significance with regard to the high

Downloaded from eijh.modares.ac.ir at 23:58 IRST on Friday October 1st 2021 1993; Dibble and Holdaway 1993), found that frequency of using Levallois technique in this Skinner's approach to identify Levallois site (Biglari and Heydari 2002). And the most pieces were too conservative (Dibble 1984). recently, excavation at Martarik cave, located Years later, H. L. Dibble reviewed the Bisitun few hundred meters above the Bisitun rock collection and managed to identify shelter in the same rock massif (Bisitun noteworthy presence of Levallois elements in Mountain) has clearly indicated abundance of the collection (Figure 1). He calculated the Levallois technique in the Middle Paleolithic Levallois index for the entire assemblage in of Zagros (Joubert et al 2009). Bisitun as 55.8 (Dibble 1984). It is crucial to

5 Reassessment of the Preliminary Report … Intl. J. Humanities (2010) Vol. 17 (2) Downloaded from eijh.modares.ac.ir at 23:58 IRST on Friday October 1st 2021

Figure 1 Levallois flakes and blades from Bisitun, Zagros, from Dibble 1984.

6 Vahdati Nasab H. Intl. J. Humanities (2010) Vol. 17 (2)

Pages 155 and 156 of the original report located in the lowlands all across the country indicate the significant presence of Levallois (e.g., Berillon et al. 2007; Chevrier et al. 2006; technique in the lowland Khuzistan: Vahdati Nasab 2009; Vahdati Nasab et al. "… in 1963 we discovered an open-air 2009). Mousterian site in lowland Khuzistan which Pertaining to the cultural explanation for had typical Levallois tortoise cores. This site, presence of Levallois technique in some sites, which lies at an elevation of ca. 200 meters, not and refereeing such technique to a culturally far from the Deh Luran plain, has not yet been distinct people, it seems that this idea at that published. Two possibilities suggest themselves: time was driven from Bordes’ works. Bordes either the difference is temporal (i.e., Levallois claimed that the Mousterian industry refers to a technique is present in an earlier Mousterian, complex of some cultural groups, which to possibly more abundant in the lowlands) or some degree could be related or far from each cultural (i.e., Levallois technique was used on other and some even with different origins the lowland steppe but not in the mountains, (Bordes 1961, 1969). Recent studies show that presumably by contemporaneous but culturally there are many reasons to abandon Bordes idea. distinct peoples)" (Hole and Flannery Binford suggested that the difference among 1967:155-156) assemblages could have been functional and in Some recent studies show that the presence response to the different settlement patterns, of Levallois technique had higher frequencies in mobility, and seasonal activities (Binford general among the early Middle Paleolithic 1973).

Downloaded from eijh.modares.ac.ir at 23:58 IRST on Friday October 1st 2021 industries (Monnier 2006). Consequently, the Other studies imply that there is no direct first scenario proposed by the author concerning consistency between behaviors and the temporal variation in the Middle Paleolithic certain stylistic or functional objects, especially of Zagros seems justifiable. On the other hand, in case of lithics, which can be reshaped or data regarding the Middle Paleolithic of Iran in remodified during their use (Rolland and Dibble general and that of Zagros in particular are too 1990). Raw material accessibility, quantity, and sporadic, which prevents one to propose any its other properties such as size and shape of model for relationship between the elevation cobbles can influence the final shape of tools and Levallois technique. However, based on the during the manufacturing. Also the quality current Paleolithic knowledge in Iran, it sounds of raw material can affect the use of different that most of the Middle Paleolithic assemblages flaking techniques. For example handaxes, with high frequency of Levallois technique are scrapers, points, and Levallois assemblages are

7 Reassessment of the Preliminary Report … Intl. J. Humanities (2010) Vol. 17 (2)

tend to be made on fine-grained materials like to record some of the missing sites in the previous flint, whereas other tools such as denticulate report. However, due to inadequate Paleolithic and notches were made on coarser materials. excavations in Zagros, our knowledge concerning In addition, Dibble's work (1984, 1987, the reconstruction of settlement patterns and 1991, and 1995) has shown that in some cases identifying any continuity or discontinuity among the various scrapers in Bordes typology could different Paleolithic industries in Zagros is still in be interpreted as just different stages of preliminary stages, and any firm judgment in this continuous transformation through resharpening regard must be waited for more data driven from and reduction process. As a matter of fact so future excavations in this region. Dependency of many of retouched tools in Mousterian Levallois technique to the elevation from the sea assemblages could just be considered the level in Zagros is an interesting subject; however, discard and end worn out objects rather than again due to the lack of Paleolithic surveys in the intentional tools related to a distinct cultural lowland Zagros not much could be said in this group. Finally Kuhn believes that the shape of regard at this moment. But, new Paleolithic the tool blank has more powerful effect on surveys and excavations in Zagros have revealed scrapers final shape than reduction process the fact that absence of Levallois technique could (Kuhn 1992). no longer be regarded as one of the features of the Zagros Middle Paleolithic industries. Conclusion More than four decades has been passed from Acknowledgments

Downloaded from eijh.modares.ac.ir at 23:58 IRST on Friday October 1st 2021 the time of original survey was conducted by The special thanks go to Professor Frank Hole Hole and Flannery in central Zagros. During the from the department of the Yale last four decades and more importantly since University for his wonderful comments on the 1990 there have been significant discoveries in original drafts, and providing me with his the Paleolithic of Zagros and numerous sites unpublished materials from the 1961 field have been recorded and some were selected for mission. excavations. Therefore, the need for reassessment of the original report by References incorporating some of the new data considered [1] Baumler, M. F & J. D. Speth. (1993). A inevitable. Consequently, in the late 1999, the Middle Paleolithic Assemblage from Kunji author along with fellow researchers re- Cave, Iran. In: The Paleolithic Prehistory of surveyed the Khorramabad region with the aim the Zagros-Taurus, edited by Deborah I.

8 Vahdati Nasab H. Intl. J. Humanities (2010) Vol. 17 (2)

Olszewski and Harold L. Dibble, pp. 1-73. [6] Böeda, E. (1988). Le concept laminaire: University Museum Monograph 83, rupture et filiation avec le concept Levallois. University Museum Symposium Series 5. In Ĺ Homme de Néandertal, vol. 8: La Philadelphia, PA: University of Mutation, ed. M. Otte. Pennsylvania. [7] Bordes, F. (1961). Mousterian cultures in [2] Berillon, G, A. Asgari Khaneghah, P. France. Science 134:803–10. Antoine, J-J. Bahain, B. Chevrier, V. [8] Bordes, F. (1969). Reflections on Zeitoun, N. Aminzadeh, M. Beheshti, H. typology and techniques in the Paleolithic. Ebadollahi Chanzangh & S. Nochadi. Arctic Anthropology 6:1–29. (2007). Discovery of new open-air [9] Chevrier, B, G. Berillon, A. Asgari Paleolithic localities in Central Alborz, Khaneghah, P. Antoine, J. J. Bahain, and V. Northern Iran. Journal of , Zeitoun. (2006). Moghanak, Otchounak, 52: 380-387. Garm Roud 2 : nouveaux assemblages [3] Biglari, F and S. Heydari. (2001). Do- paléolithiques dans le Nord de l'Iran. Ashkaft: a Recently Discovered Mousterian Caractérisations typo-technologiques et Cave Site in the Kermanshah Plain, Iran. attributions chrono-culturelles. Paléorient, Antiquity 75, pp: 487-488. 32, 2: 59-79. [4] Biglari, F, and R. Ghafari. (2004). The [10] Coon, C. S. 1951. Cave Explorations in Preliminary Report on the Discovery of Iran (1949). Museum Monographs, the Middle Paleolithic Artifacts near Maragheh, University Museum, University of

Downloaded from eijh.modares.ac.ir at 23:58 IRST on Friday October 1st 2021 Southeast of the Lake Urmieh. In M. Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Azarnoush (ed), Proceedings of the [11] Dibble, H. L. (1984). The Mousterian International Symposium on Iranian Industry from (Iran). Archaeology; Northwestern Region, Pp. 17- Paléorient 10: 323-334. 26, Iranian Center for Archaeological [12] Dibble, H. L. (1987). The interpretation of Research, ICHTO. Tehran. (In Persian) Middle Paleolithic morphology. [5] Binford, L. (1973). Interassemblage American Antiquity 52:109–17. variability: The Mousterian and the [13] Dibble, H. L. (1991). Local raw material functional argument. In The explanation of exploitation and its effects on Lower and culture change, ed. C. Renfrew, 227–54. Middle Paleolithic assemblage variability. In London: Duckworth. Raw material economies among prehistoric hunter-gatherers, ed. A. Montet-White and

9 Reassessment of the Preliminary Report … Intl. J. Humanities (2010) Vol. 17 (2)

S. Holen, 33–48. University of Kansas Proceedings of the XV World Congress Publications in Anthropology 19. (Lisbon, 4-9 September 2006), pp: 7-28. [14] Dibble, H. L. (1995). Middle Paleolithic [19] Kuhn, S. L. (1992). Blank form and scraper reduction: Background, clarification, reduction as determinants of Mousterian and review of evidence to data. Journal of scraper morphology. American Antiquity, Archaeological Method and Theory 2:299– 57: 115-128. 368. [20] Kuhn, S. L. (1995). Mousterian Lithic [15] Dibble, H. L. & S. J. Holdaway. (1993). Technology: An Ecological Perspective. The Middle Paleolithic Industries of Princeton: Princeton University Press. Warwasi: in D.I. Olszewski and H.L. Dibble [21] Mellars, P. (1996). The (ed.), The Paleolithic Prehistory of the Legacy. Princeton: Princeton University Zagros-Taurus, pp.75-99. Philadelphia: Press. University Museum Symposium Series, [22] Monnier, G. F. (2006). The Lower/Middle Volume 5, University of Pennsylvania. Paleolithic Periodization in Western Europe. [16] Eren, M. I, A. Greenspan, C. G. Sampson. Current Anthropology, Volume 47, number (2008). Are Upper Paleolithic cores 5, pages: 709-744. more productive than Middle Paleolithic [23] Mortensen, P.(1974a). A survey of discoidal cores? A replication experiment. Prehistoric Settelments in Northern Journal of Human Evolution, 55: 952-961. Lorestan. Acta Archaeologyica, 45:1-7. [17] Hole, F, and K. V. Flannery. (1967). The [24] Mortensen, P.(1974b). A Survey of

Downloaded from eijh.modares.ac.ir at 23:58 IRST on Friday October 1st 2021 Prehistory of Southwestern Iran: A Prehistoric sites in the Holailan Valley in Preliminary Report. Proceedings of the Lorestan. In Proceedings of the Second Prehistoric Society 33: 147-206. Annual Symposium on Archaeological [18] Jaubert, J, F. Biglari, V. Mourre, L. Research in Iran, Tehran 1973, edited by F. Bruxelles, J. G. Bordes, S. Shidrang, R. Bagherzadeh, Tehran, Pp: 34-52 Naderi, M. Mashkour, B. Maureille, J. B. [25] Mortillet, G. (1883). Le pre´historique: Mallye, Y. Quinif, W. Rendu, and V. Antiquite´ de l’homme. Paris: C. Reinwald. Laroulandie. (2009). The Middle Paleolithic [26] Rolland, N, Dibble, H. (1990). A New Occupation of Mar-Tarik, a New Zagros Synthesis of Middle Paleolithic Variability. Mousterian Site. In Iran Paleolithic, edited American Antiquity, Volume 55. Issue 3, by M. Otte, F. Biglari, and J. Jaubert. July. 480-499.

10 Vahdati Nasab H. Intl. J. Humanities (2010) Vol. 17 (2)

[27] Roustaei, K, Biglari, F, Heydari, S & H. [31] Vahdati Nasab, H, H. Mollasalehi, M. Vahdatinasab. (2002). New research on the Saeedpour, and N. Jamshidi. (2009). Paleolithic of Lurestan, West Central Iran. Paleolithic Levalloisian Assemblages from Antiquity, 76 Issue 291, page: 19. Boeen Zahra in the Qazvin Plain (Iran). [28] Roustaei, K, Vahdatinasab, H, Biglari, F Antiquity. Volume 83, issue 320, project & S. Heydari. (2004). Recent Paleolithic gallery. surveys in Luristan. Current Anthropology. [32] Wallace, I. J & J. J. Shea. (2006). Mobility 45, pages: 692-707. patterns and core in the Middle

[29] Skinner, J- (1965). The Flake Industry of Paleolithic of the Levant. Journal of Southwest Asia: A Typological Study. Archaeological Science, 33: 1293-1309 Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Columbia University, New York. [30] Vahdati Nasab, H. (2009). Paleolithic Survey of Mirak. Report to the Iranian Centre for Archaeological Research, ICHTO. Tehran. (In Persian)

Downloaded from eijh.modares.ac.ir at 23:58 IRST on Friday October 1st 2021

11

ﺑﺎزﺑﻴﻨﻲ ﮔﺰارش ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺎﺗﻲ ﭘﻴﺶ از ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ ﺟﻨﻮب ﻏﺮب اﻳﺮان، ﻧﻮﺷﺘﻪ ﻓﺮﻧﻚ ﻫﻮل و ﻛﻨﺖ ﻓﻠﻨﺮي1967-

ﺣﺎﻣﺪ وﺣﺪﺗﻲ ﻧﺴﺐ1

ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ درﻳﺎﻓﺖ: 22/9/1388 ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ ﭘﺬﻳﺮش: 1388/11/3

ﺑﻴﺶ از ﭼﻬﺎر دﻫﻪ از زﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻓﺮﻧﻚ ﻫﻮل و ﻛﻨﺖ ﻓﻠﻨﺮي ﮔﺰارش ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺎﺗﻲ ﺧـﻮد در ﺧـﺼﻮص ﭘﻴﺪا ﻧﻤﻮدن ﻣﺤﻮﻃﻪ ﻫ ﺎي ﭘﺎرﻳﻨﻪ ﺳﻨﮕﻲ در زاﮔﺮس ﻣﺮﻛﺰي را ﺑﻪ ﭼﺎپ رﺳﺎﻧﺪه اﻧﺪ ﻣـﻲ ﮔـﺬرد . از آن زﻣﺎن ﺗﺎ ﻛﻨﻮن ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﻫﺎ و ﻛﺎوﺷﻬﺎي ﻣﺘﻌﺪدي در ﻧﺎﺣﻴﻪ ﻣﺬﻛﻮر اﻧﺠﺎم ﺷﺪه ﻛﻪ ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﺑﺮﺧـﻲ از آﻧﺎن ﺑﺮﺧﻲ داده ﻫﺎي ﮔﺰارش ﺳﺎل 1967 را ﺑﻪ ﭼﺎﻟﺶ ﻛﺸﻴﺪه اﻧﺪ . ﻫﺪف ﻋﻤﺪه اﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻫـﻴﭻ روي اﻧﺘﻘﺎد از ﮔﺰارش ﻣﺬﻛﻮر ﻧ ﺒﻮده و ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﺳﻌﻲ ﺑﺮ اﻳﻦ ﺑﻮده اﺳﺖ ﺗﺎ داده ﻫﺎ و ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻫﺎي ﺟﺪﻳـﺪ در آن ﮔﻨﺠﺎﻧﻴﺪه ﺷﻮد . ﺑ ﻪﻋﻨﻮان ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ ﻧﮕﺎرﻧﺪه ﻣﻌﺘﻘﺪ اﺳ ﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮﺧﻲ ﻣﺤﻮﻃﻪ ﻫـﺎﻳﻲ ﻛـﻪ در ﺳـﺎل 1963 ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﻫﻮل و ﻓﻠﻨﺮي ﺛﺒﺖ وﻟﻲ ﻫﺮﮔﺰ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻲ ﻧﮕﺸﺘﻪ ﺑﻮدﻧـﺪ را ﺗﻮاﻧـﺴﺘﻪ در ﺑﺮرﺳـﻲ ﻫـﺎي ﻣﺠﺪد ﺧﻮد و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران ﭘﻴﺪا ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺪ . ﻫﻤﭽﻨﻴﻦ ﻛﺸﻔﻴﺎت اﺧﻴﺮ در ﺧﺼﻮص ﺣﻀﻮر ﺗﻜﻨﻴـﻚ ﻟﻮآﻟـﻮآ ﺣﺎﻛﻲ از اﻳﻦ اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮﺧﻼف ادﻋﺎي ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﮔﺎن ﮔﺰارش ﺳﺎل 1967، ﺣﻀﻮر اﻳـﻦ ﺗﻜﻨﻴـﻚ در Downloaded from eijh.modares.ac.ir at 23:58 IRST on Friday October 1st 2021 ﺻﻨﺎﻳﻊ ﭘﺎرﻳﻨﻪ ﺳﻨﮕﻲ ﻣﻴﺎﻧﻲ زاﮔﺮس ﭼﺸﻤﮕﻴﺮ اﺳﺖ.

واژﮔﺎن ﻛﻠﻴﺪي: ﻣﻮﺳﺘﺮي زاﮔﺮس، ﭘﺎرﻳﻨﻪ ﺳﻨﮕﻲ ﻣﻴﺎﻧﻲ، ﺗﻜﻨﻴﻚ ﻟﻮآﻟﻮآ

1. اﺳﺘﺎدﻳﺎر ﮔﺮوه ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺎن ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﺗﺮﺑﻴﺖ ﻣﺪرس، دﺑﻴﺮ ﻛﻤﻴﺘﻪ ﭘﺎرﻳﻨﻪ ﺳﻨﮕﻲ ﭘﮋوﻫﺸﻜﺪه ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺎن ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ، ﭘﺴﺖ اﻟﻜﺘﺮوﻧﻴﻜﻲ: [email protected]

12